I first saw this with my family in a theatre in 2012.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is my all time fav Bond film.

This is the twenty-third in the Bond series n the third to star Daniel Craig as James Bond.

This time Bond returns to service after MI6's servers are hacked and M receives a taunting computer message moments before the MI6 building explodes.

Inspite of failing a series of physical, medical, and psychological examinations, Bond returns to the field to pursue an assassin known as Patrice n to recover a stolen hard drive containing details of undercover agents which is in the hands of Patrice's employer, Raoul Silva, a cyberterrorist seeking revenge against those he holds responsible for betraying him.

I love the pre credit scene in this one, the motorcycle chase on the rooftops is awesome, the train chase sequence is adrenaline filled n the scene at The Varda Viaduct is amazeballs.

The climactic action is more old skool n filled with solid atmosphere.

The title track along with the picturization n Bond's fall from The Varda Viaduct is very gothic like.

The abandoned palatial house, the vast moors, the chapel, the secret passageway, the isolation n the sky almost touching the ground, is filled with top notch atmosphere.

This time Bond faces Raoul Silva n lots of his henchmen n a komodo dragon.

Bond also faces Patrice, a mercenary working for Silva.

This time Bond gets to cool off with Naomie Harris, Tonia Sotiropoulou n Berenice Marlohe.

In this movie, for the first n last time we get to see Moneypenny doing field work along with Bond and later how she opted for the iconic desktop work.

Having watched every James Bond film on the big silver screen since The Spy Who Loved Me in 1977.

It was almost surreal to see Skyfall being made by an Oscar winning director, go on to win Oscars and become one of the top grossing films of all time. The billion dollar Bond.

To think back in 1989, Licence to Kill could not compete with the likes of Batman, Indiana Jones or Lethal Weapon 2 in the US box office.

Bond is presumed dead after a mission goes wrong in Istanbul as he tries to retrieve a hard drive containing a list of top agents. M is under pressure especially as it seems she is being targeted by an anonymous cyber terrorist who turns out to be a rogue agent Silva (Javier Bardem) who was once M's most effective spy.

Skyfall celebrated 50 years of the Bond films in the cinemas. It also takes liberties with the messy timeline of the film series. Daniel Craig's novice spy from Casino Royale is now a disillusioned veteran, at one point told to call it a day.

The film re-introduces some familiar characters after being away for a few films, a younger more hi-tech Q and a new Miss Moneypenny. There is also a new M hovering in the background. The film also references earlier Bond movies as part of its golden anniversary celebrations.

Although the film contains international locations, breathtaking action, some sumptuous cinematography from Roger Deakins, it flags a bit in the middle when it needed an additional action sequence.

What director Sam Mendes does bring is some character moments and making effective use of Judi Dench as she recites some Tennyson.

Unusually for a Bond film, this must be the only occasion where the villain actually achieved all of his objectives!

"He knows us. He's one of us. He comes from the same place as Bond, a place you say doesn't exist, the shadows." The world's greatest secret agent is back, but is the need for an agent outdated in today's modern world? After MI-6 is attacked and M (Dench) is brought under scrutiny by the government Bond (Craig) alone is left to find out who is behind the attack while M is trying to both help Bond and defend the need for an agency that has been compromised. I know that a review is really not needed here, being the 23rd Bond movie either you will watch it or not. I am a huge fan of the series and was really looking forward to this after hearing this is the best Bond movie yet. I have really loved the Craig movies but for some reason they never had the feel of a Bond movie to me, I wasn't sure what was missing but they didn't have the same feel. Knowing that they were re-booting the series I was lenient and with this one the re-boot is complete. This had much more of a feel of a classic Bond movie and by the end I was excited to see the next one. I got chills watching a few times and especially at the end. This had possibly the best opening and ending to a Bond movie ever. I could go on and on about this but I will just say if you love Bond you will love this, if you have never seen one then this one will make you a fan. Overall, From Russia With Love is my favorite Bond movie but this a very close second, and I think may be more re-watchable. I wanted to watch this one again as soon as the movie was over. I give this a very high A.

It has been a long ride for the Bond series, since the creation of the character there have been 15 novels by Ian Fleming, plenty of spin-off novels, comics, cartoons and video games and the film series is now 50 years old. There have been an extraordinary 23 official films, but few as extraordinary as Skyfall.

After a mission goes wrong in Istanbul, MI6 loses a hard drive containing a list of all NATO agents within terrorist cells, and James Bond (Daniel Craig) is presumed Killed in Action. M's (Judi Dench) competence is questioned and the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) plans to replace her. Making matters worse, a cyber-terrorist targets MI6 and M personally, getting a hold of the list and causing an explosion within MI6's headquarters. An older, more damaged Bond then returns to duty to serve Queen and Country, having to prove he is in shape before going on the search to find the terrorist.

Skyfall is a long-awaited film thanks to MGM's financial woes, but it delivers. Skyfall takes a darker approach as we've seen with the past couple films and it's very character driven, yet Sam Mendes and the screenwriters still provide a massive injection of fun. Like most Bond films, Skyfall starts with an incredible chase sequence in Istanbul and continues strongly from then on, including a very stylish silhouette fight in Shanghai. The action scenes sequences were pristinely shot and practical effects were at the forefront.

A challenge for the Bond series has always been real-world relevance. The series has faced down all challenges, from the end of the Cold War to the War on Terror. Skyfall tackles the changing nature of espionage. MI6 is no longer the shadowy organisation that the British government denied existed; it has to face the realities of the 24-hour media age we live in and the democratic accountability that incurs.

The nature of the threats have changed, Bond faces a cyber-terrorist and along with the new Q, both could cause more damage than Bond can. In the real world, we have seen what Anonymous is capable of and seen how the Stuxnet worm affected the Iranian nuclear program. But there is always a need for people in the field to investigate. As M says, she is scared of this new world because many of the West's enemies are now faceless and nationless, and this element can work in the series' favour. Versatility has always been a Bond hallmark, which is why it is so enduring.

Skyfall also goes full circle for Bond, as the filmmakers reintroduce popular characters, gadgets and humour. In Casino Royale, Bond is a young man who is bold, arrogant and reckless but can get the job done; in Skyfall, Craig is playing an older Bond who is both physically and emotionally vulnerable.

The idea of an older Bond was briefly touched on in the unofficial film Never Say Never Again, but that was more to accommodate a 52-year-old Sean Connery being in the role. In Skyfall there is actual thematic reasons behind it. Craig gives another excellent performance, cementing his reputation as both a great actor and a great Bond, and the script treats him more as a character than an archetype. Along with M's character arch, the film tackles a theme of facing the past so it can be cleansed.

The casting of Javier Bardem was a coup for the series and we as Bond fans are rewarded with a great villain. Bardem makes out Raoul Silva to be a man with seemingly camp mannerisms, but the master planner has a very sinister delivery. He has a complex, tragic background but he is not like other Bond villains looking for control, world domination, money or even self-preservation: he simply wants revenge.

Skyfall is a great milestone to celebrate Bond's 50th birthday on film, and the Easter eggs for fans aren't overbearing, but rather nice touches. The last anniversary Bond film, Die Another Day, was a disaster and regarded as one of the worst Bond films. It felt like it had to keep referencing the previous films. Skyfall features a few major references to previous Bond films: Bond getting injured (The World is Not Enough), Bond faking his death (You Only Live Twice), the gun that can only work with Bond's palm print (Licence to Kill) and a similar villain to the one in Goldeneye. But these are references you would want to find, not being forced upon you.

Skyfall felt very much like end of one chapter and the start of a new one. Mendes and the writers were able to reintroduce many tropes of the Bond series and still give them a modern and believable twist. For a film that has a 143-minute running time (the second longest Bond film), Skyfall never felt like it dragged and it was an exciting, entertaining film.

Please visit www.entertainmentfuse.com

Bond 23 and 007 has to literally come back from the dead when a stolen hard-drive makes M (Dench) look bad at a time when a face from her past comes homing into blood thirsty view.

There is one sure fire fact in cinema that nobody can dispute, that of there never ever being a James Bond film that all Bondphiles will agree on. From each corner of the spectrum will come arguments that said Bond film is not gritty enough, not fun enough, not enough sex, not enough action, not enough fantastical stunts and etc etc etc. Well that's fine of course, we all have our peccadilloes we prefer in our Bond movies, but we do live in different times now, the world has changed, and so has Bond. You may not get the ultimate Bond you want, but this is a 21st Century Bond and a new era of 007 is upon us, something which makes Skyfall even the more bolder and braver because it marks the 50th anniversary by blending the old with the new and mostly achieving brilliant results.

Skyfall allows us to bathe in nostalgia whilst also forcing us to re- evaluate just where we are at in terms of our beloved super secret agent. One of the great things about this Bond is that there is a bubbling under current of time's importance delicately perched on each side of James Bond's shoulders. Is he (and M etc) outdated? Or is the future still in need of such operatives/organisations? Director Mendes and his team don't take any of the easy options that were clearly available to them to answer the question, they instead build a film around Bond and M as characters, embrace the traditions of the series and hit us hard in head and heart.

The plot of Skyfall as written is simple, absolutely nailed on it is straight and true to Hollywood conventions, but what fills out the simple plot is a series of Bondian delights, thrills spills and emotionally splintered kills. The stunning pre-credits sequence sees Bond traverse the rooftops of Istanbul on a motorcycle and then fight on top of a speeding train. Only to then find himself expendable. Which leads to Daniel Kleinman's title credits sequence that is filled with ominous portents of death and blood, in turn backed by the wonderfully Bondian of old title song warbled by Adele. It's clear at this point that this Bond movie is nodding to traditional values whilst promising to deliver some emotional pain. And so it proves.

A washed up Bond enters the fray, and he convinces, he's dishevelled, unshaven and unfit, but he's still a tough bastard who can drink hard and stare a scorpion down. He'll be back soon, we know this, and he will be in wonderful physical shape, and loyal to his surrogate mother for sure. Ah, but there's the adversary on the scene now, a villain to finally give Craig's Bond something to fret about. It's Javier Bardem's (perfect) Silva, a cyber terrorist with a shock of blonde hair, a nasty dental trick and a devilish sexiness that unnerves during an interrogation scene; to which Bond cheekily opens up some wink wink possibilities. There is other sexual tension in the film as well, not just a steamy shower scene, but the ongoing banter with Naomie Harris' (excellent) Eve that positively fizzes with smirking innuendo.

But ultimately this comes down to the love between a man and a woman, the kind that is so different to the type that has so often underpinned a Bond movie. Bond will kill or be killed for M, and how marvellous to see a director really able to give Judi Dench the direction she so deserves, and Bond, in Craig's magnetic and gritty hands, responds in kind to deliver a last half hour as good as any in the 50 years of Bond on film. As we know, all turf is Bond's turf, but this time it really is HIS turf, and as a little back story comes seeping out, Bond gets to exorcise some demons whilst kicking considerable ass. Get ready Bondphiles, this has the emotional wallop only seen in the best Bond movies of old.

All the Bondian trappings are still here, exotic locales, gorgeous women, speeding vehicles, fights, stupendous stunts, bizarre lairs and balls out machismo. It's also funny! I myself commented when reviewing Quantum of Solace that it was pretty ace as an action film, but for many it's not Bondian enough, and the truth of the matter is Bond still needs to have a degree of fun, no matter how grim and gritty the story line is. Thankfully Skyfall is often a blast, with Craig (surely convincing even the most stubborn of dissenters how good a Bond he is) having the confidence and skill to lace his Bond's macho broody instinct with a desert dry wit and shrug of the shoulders nonchalance. Other side of the camera the tech credits are high, with Deakins proving to be one of the aces in the pack. His capturing of vistas, be it a neon city scape or a mountainous valley, are eye delights, his colour tones are beautiful, I promise you, nobody these days does golden browns like Deakins.

It's not the masterpiece that I or gazillions of others hoped for, and it does have flaws (new Q a bit too geeky safe, finale lacks a substantial battle with the villain) and it remains simple in plot, but it's Bond's birthday and the birthday boy has been done proud by the makers. It's a new era Bond for sure, but that most definitely isn't a bad thing, it knows its past and it now knows its future, and without doubt we all still know the name. 9/10

After a botched MI6 operation in Istanbul, a lone mercenary, Patrice (Ola Rapace), escapes with a computer file containing details about undercover agents working within terrorist organisations. James Bond is accidentally shot by his partner Eve (Naomie Harris) and believed to be dead. Back in London, M (Judi Dench) finds her position threatened by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), who urges her to retire in the aftermath of Istanbul. When the MI6 headquarters are bombed following a threatening cyber-message to M, Bond returns, facing questions about his mental state and his physical ability. But when Patrice is tracked down, an assassination leads Bond to a casino in Macao, owned by cyber- terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a former colleague of M's. If I can say off the bat, I've always been in favour of this re- invention of Bond. As the 'old' Bond films were progressing, they were becoming gradually more ridiculous and fantasy-laden, leading to the inexplicable invisible car in Pierce Brosnan's last film as Bond, Die Another Day (2002). The films seemed to be losing sight of Ian Fleming's source novels, and although they remained commercial hits, Brosnan's outings (with the exception of GoldenEye (1995) were becoming increasingly dire. Casino Royale set the tone early with a moody black- and-white sequence that gave birth to Daniel Craig's colder, brutal Bond, less concerned with how his Martini's were made than going to extreme (and illegal) lengths to bring down his target(s). Royale's reinvention showed a darker side to the beloved character, yet staying with tradition, still kept him at an emotional distance. Director Sam Mendes made the bold decision to reveal more about Bond's past and childhood, risking fanboy wrath and damaging Bond's almost mythical characterisations. The main crux of the film focuses on his relationship with M, a stern authoritarian that risks career and her own soul in putting national safety and the success of a mission above the lives of her agents. Bond, being a willing soldier, follows M blindly, and when Silva announces his intention to enact revenge on M for a former betrayal, Bond takes M to his childhood home, Skyfall. Bond facing his childhood allows time to develop on Bond's tormented psyche, but it all seems quite out of place. One of the most intriguing things about Bond is his almost suicidal willingness to risk all for his job due to his almost complete lack of emotion, but Skyfall is unable to make any grand revelations so it all comes to nothing more than a distraction. (Saying that, the only previous Bond film to try and engage Bond emotionally led to one of the most devastatingly cold climaxes in the series' history in the underrated On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)). As well as the Bourne series, it seems that Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) is a major influence on this film in particular. Mendes delves deeper into the workings and hierarchy of MI6, rather than just a boss sat behind a desk, and adds a modern, more 'real' bad guy in Silva to the mix (even stealing the Joker's voluntary arrest in The Dark Knight (2008)). Silva is a technical genius, able to hack MI6's database with relative ease, and also proving himself more resourceful and intelligent than Bond and M realise. Bardem is wonderful in the role (as you would expect), but sadly his character is not. Labelling him simply as a cyber virtuoso seems like a very lazy way to allow Silva to repeatedly outwit MI6 and their own technical marvel Q (Ben Whishaw) to the point where you wonder if Britain's finest could really be so stupid. The film is therefore full of plot-holes and distracting MacGuffin's that stretches out the running time to more than it really needs to be. Skyfall also asks a lot of the audience, especially when it comes to suspending their belief. Before the frankly bizarre opening sequence appears and we are treated to Adele's drab title song, we witness an already wounded Bond get shot with a rifle and fall over 300 feet from the Varda Viaduct into water, only to emerge alive and romancing a mystery woman. No explanation is given as to how he manages to survive the ordeal, and given the revelations about Bond's diminishing physical prowess, it seems rather insulting. As questions are raised by his superiors over Bond's ability to his job given his age (it must be the grey in his stubble), Bond is put through various tests in which he struggles with, yet half way through the film, this seems to be simply put aside as he competently shoots and fights his way through various bad guys. Again, no real explanation given. Like I stated before, the most suitable word to describe this film would be underwhelming, especially with the critical adoration that the film was lavished with. The action scenes are dull, with nothing matching the free-jumping opening of Royale. They are also quite strange - was anyone expecting a henchman to be eaten by a CGI Komodo dragon? How about death by underwater funky chicken? It all leads to a very unsatisfying climax at Skyfall, where a simple shoot-out and foot chase fail to justify a 2 hour-plus build-up. It feels like the entire film is building up to an explosive climax that never comes. I found the whole experiencing really quite baffling, with the attempts to mix the old with the new Bond never really convincing or flowing. The film is competently directed by Mendes however, and everything looks suitably crisp and clean. What direction all of this means for Bond, I don't know, but given the film is currently the 14th highest-grossing film of all time, and the film somehow being lauded by critics and audiences alike, it won't be too long until Craig dons the suit once again.

It is one thing to deconstruct a film genre, a genre that has reached the level of dynasty, to make it better. It is an entirely different matter to do so merely because you can, to show off your own power, and to leave the genre in tatters. Sam Mendes is incapable of making a film that is not dazzling to the eye. He is a visual artist of the highest calibre and possibly one of the greatest directors living today. Similarly the lead actors are incapable of delivering a performance that is less than stellar given the scripts they are handed. But the praise ends there. This is not a Bond film. This is an anti-Bond film. Notice kind reader that every task Bond is handed in the script ends in failure. Don't shoot the messenger, just watch the film. Notice that at some point Mendes became momentarily self-aware of what he was doing by bringing, out of nowhere, using the magic of film, the Aston Martin DB7 from a half-century ago, fully fuelled and ready to go, with the old Bond theme for accompaniment. But he just couldn't go through with it. The moment (the self-aware moment) passed and he went back to Plan A, the Anti-Bond film, and, in one of the most gratuitous but Freudian moments ever seen, blew the car to bits. Just like he blew the Bond formula to bits. I know what you are thinking. You thinking that an artist has license to do all this if the end result is entertaining and satisfying. True. But this film is as satisfying to the viewer as a car wreck. Visuals aside, it is hollow and leave a strange taste in the palate. Shame.

A James Bond film made for the modern era, you'd be hard pressed to find any other film series able to stand the test of time and still feel relevant. When it looks like it's lagging behind the competition of the other spy action thrillers, the makers have taken note and re-invented the mould, making it more real and exciting.

To me, Bond had too much of a rigid formula, the cars, the chases, the girls, the gadgets, the megalomaniac villain's and the spectacular set pieces/stunts. After a while though, the older films seem to suffer from a sense of deja vu. It's a case of been there, done that. The structure of the films have become stale and repetitive. Same plot about a group of criminals/organisation hell bent on world domination/destruction, with a beautiful bond girl in tow, Bond and or Bond girl gets capture, ridiculous car chase or stunts with a million of cheesy one liners. Frankly, I had pretty much given up on the Bond films. They have become predictable and tedious with only the change of location to give the film any sort of distinction.

The plot of Skyfall is unlike previous Bond films, starts with the routine chase resulting in Bond being shot and wounded, believed to be dead by MI6. When an attack on MI6 headquarters manifest through a cyber attack and a bombing at the headquarters, Bond returns to uncover who is behind the assault. Struggling from his gun shot wound, Bond has to prove his fitness mentally and physically through some rigorous tests. Sent back into action without being fully fit, Bond embarks on the mission to expose the mastermind. What Bond discovers is a villain who happens to be ex-agent who has a vendetta against M and will stop at nothing to kill her.

First thing you'll notice is the lack of gadgets and the usually bond girl (there is one of sorts but you'll understand when you watch it). Also with a villain who is suave yet as equally menacing as Hannibal Lector, we have a loose cannon who isn't after the world but revenge. It's spy vs spy and the story is more of a evolution of the characters that inhabit the world of Bond. Nods to older Bond films crop up from dialogue, props and even the classic Austin Martin car makes an appearance. It's a homage as well as a resurrection of well known characters.

What we are given here is a Bond with more layers to him and more emotions. Daniel Craig has moulded a Bond who is more relateable. Signs of physical and emotional weakness shows us a Bond who is no longer a super spy with little or no vulnerability. Other characters are given more screen time and provide an emotion gravitas (We are also introduced to Q, a young model who is still wet behind the ears).

In the hands of Sam Mendes and Director of photography Roger Deakins, there has never been a more beautiful shot Bond film. During Bond's fight with a criminal minion we see only their silhouettes, but the eye is drawn to the beauty of the neon Shanghai backdrop. The reserve can be said for the grime, dour and rainy streets of London which captures our the United Kingdom perfectly.

It's a satisfying and enjoyable film, with plenty of action and a surprising emotional core to the narrative. A great development in characters with seeds being sown to allow for a more relateable and mature story telling and for future characters to come to the fore. Skyfall has made me fall in love with Bond films again so here's hoping there's no more rigid formula and routine mundane narratives of past.

This is one of the best Bond movies I have ever seen. The story is superbly put together and has some interesting twists, the action is well done and contains none of the shaky cam which plagued the last film. The actors all do a great job. Some might still be put off by Daniel Craig's rough version of Bond, but I like it and he even has a few good old fashioned one-liners here. I wasn't sure about Javier Bardem as the villain at first. I thought he was a tad too flamboyant but eventually he grew on me, plus he had a very interesting backstory and as you might have guessed already, Judi Dench is fantastic as usual as M and she even has more to do in the story this time arround. This is not a completely formulaic Bond movie. Craig's bond is still more emotional than Connery or Moore ever were and for the first time we get some relatively detailed descriptions of his childhood. And something happens to Bond in the start of the movie that affects him for the rest of the film. But despite all that there are tons of James Bond trademarks like the martini, the introduction and even Q. Some might not like this new very young version of Q but I found him to be funny and very likable. They will never top Desmond Llewelyn's original performance, and instead of making a cheap Llewelyn clone, they make a completely different character which I think is the only right thing to do. This is not only a great Bond movie but just a downright great film.

The Short: Skyfall is exciting, tense, action packed and surprisingly beautiful. The perfect way to conclude 50 years of the incredible Bond legacy.

Bond is back, baby.

Skyfall is here; the highly anticipated next chapter in the much loved and respected Bond film legacy. And to much delight, Skyfall is no cash-in...this is a full fledged, action packed, and thoroughly conclusive Bond experience like no Bond film before it.

Daniel Craig returns as the stoic James Bond, but this time he is a more vulnerable James Bond than before. The story takes Bond to and company to very interesting places, and the set pieces that follow are incredibly memorable (partly because of the superb cinematography). The finale is especially incredible; it oozes style. Judi Dench is as classic as ever, Ralph Fiennes is excellent, and Javier Bardem is an incredibly complex and sinister: he is equal parts flamboyant and insane. The only weak link here is Naomie Harris. Her introduction is far too brief to get the time to like the character, and her humor is pretty bad. She becomes better as the film moves along, but nothing to the level of past Bond girls.

The action scenes are incredibly well shot and feature some of the best choreography since the Bourne trilogy. Like before, the finale is one of the best of the series, no doubt. It is explosive, intense, thoroughly satisfying and concludes a chapter in the Bond universe. The second half of the film also brings back some classic Bond ideas, and I'll keep it at that. If you have been in love with Bond series as long as I have, ever since childhood, you'll be giddy in your seat!

The soundtrack is also really great, and the new music added fits the mood well. Adele's intro song is surprisingly good. Also, the classic intro scene style is back, and it is very, very cool.

Now, Bond's latest isn't without some faults. Like mentioned before, Naomie Harris isn't great. Some of the humor is really hit or miss. There are a couple of small plot holes. All of these are little things, but keep this movie from being perfect. That being said, these things won't hurt the experience for all, and they do little to mar the overall experience.

Summing up my feelings for Bond's latest is simple: Skyfall is such a good film. Aside from a few nagging little issues, Skyfall couldn't be better. It's filled with memorable action scenes, great characters, impressive cinematography and an unforgettable finale. It carries that same level of cheesiness that Bond films are well known for, and that same brand of humor is back. It's classic Bond in a new era, directed with expertise and style.

Bond's latest mission is a success.

4.5/5 - Fantastic, a must see.

As a lifelong James Bond enthusiast who has been extremely disappointed with the franchise's latest efforts (with the exception of Casino Royale), I was extremely pleased with this film. It strayed away from the storyline of the previous two films and I couldn't have been happier after the mediocrity of Quantum of Solace. This film has all the constituents from the Bond films that have preceded it. Big explosions, ridiculous stunts that not a single person in the history of humanity can survive, and let's not forget to mention the beautiful women that would make both genders stop and stare. So what does Skyfall have that the other Bond films don't? For the first time, we get a glimpse into our mysterious hero's dark past. Where he came from and what made him the person he is today.

Although I've always been the one to say that Sean Connery is the greatest Bond ever, I can now confess that Daniel Craig now holds that honor. Sean plays the comedic, smooth, and witty Bond to perfection while Daniel plays the mysterious, dark, and lonesome secret agent flawlessly. I will always choose a darker portrayal over a comedic one because it takes a certain mindset to depict someone of that nature. One of my favorite scenes is where Bond is sitting in a bar drinking alone. I don't care who you are or what your background is, if you are drinking by yourself in a bar, then you have issues that are haunting you. Whether you can admit it or not, you are in a dark place and that is exactly where this Daniel Craig portrayed Bond is. And I love it.

Aside from Daniel Craig, you have a cast that includes some of the finest actors that have ever graced the big screen. Javier Bardem plays a blood thirsty ex-MI6 agent out for revenge. His performance is equally as creepy and twisted as his portrayal of Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" and it is an Oscar worthy performance in my opinion. Judi Dench reprises her role as M and Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney give important and memorable roles which I won't go further into detail about. Also two prominent figures from James bond history find their way back into the story line. Sam Mendes shows why he was the right choice to direct a film of this magnitude and along with the contribution of Oscar Nominee John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade come up with a memorable narrative after the disappointment of their last collaborating effort, Quantum of Solace.

I look forward to what the future has in store for everyone's favorite spy. If Skyfall is a sign of things to come, then I will remain incredibly optimistic about the future.

I am a big James Bond fan, but "Skyfall" is only a mediocre film to me. I rank it as tied for the worst Bond film with "Die another Day". I gave both these films a 5/10, which is perhaps generous and influenced by my love for the series.

"Skyfall" is just not very good on many levels, if you go in with high expectations as I did due to the glowing press, you will probably be disappointed. The film is too long, too dark, too dull, with the actions scenes not great either. The best part was near the beginning when Bond is in Shanghai, China; this part features great cinematography and visual imagery, but the rest of the film goes downhill quickly. Bond uses the woman he meets here in a psychopathic way, continuing on a bad trend.

Further problems include making "M" into Bond's surrogate mother; he calls her 'mum' often. Bond and the villain seem to be two kids, one wicked, one slightly better, fighting for their mother's attention and fate. Then there is a theme of Bond being reborn in Scotland thru the action, but this whole thing just doesn't work for me in a Bond film, or any film for that matter.

So, in summary, "Skyfall" is worth a watch, but nothing to write home about.

'SKYFALL': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

The 50th anniversary of the James Bond series brings us the third appearance of Daniel Craig as Bond in it's twenty-third film. Judi Dench makes her seventh (and final) appearance as M in her biggest turn as the role yet. Javier Bardem also co-stars as the movie's main villain. The film was directed by Sam Mendes (of 'AMERICAN BEAUTY' fame) and written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (who also co-wrote the last four Bond films) as well as John Logan. The story revolves around a computer drive, with a list of British secret agents on it, falling in to the wrong hands. The movie is masterfully directed by Mendes and features more than a handful of spectacular action scenes that Bond films are loved for. One of the better films of the series.

The movie opens with Bond and another MI6 agent, named Eve (Naomie Harris), in Turkey in hot pursuit of the mercenary, Patrice (Ola Rapace), who stole the list of undercover NATO agents. Patrice escapes and Bond is believed to be killed. The MI6 commander, M (Dench), is being pressured to retire because of the incident when MI6 is hacked and eight agents are killed. Bond learns of the attack and returns to London, after letting everyone think he was dead for months, and is returned to active duty despite failing his aptitude tests (which M keeps secret, even from Bond). Bond then teams with Eve once again to find out who's responsible for the attack on MI6, as more agents are killed, and tracks the culprit to an island in China.

I've always found good Bond films to have great elaborate action scenes but to be light on pacing and excitement in between. This film is actually much faster paced than most others in the series. It's really exciting and involving all the way up to the last 40 minutes when it seems to drag a little and go on for too long. It appears to climax at about an hour and forty minutes but then unexpectedly takes another turn and continues on (somewhat needlessly) for another 40 minutes. The ending is still action packed and somewhat exciting but by the time it gets there it's ran a little low on steam. This is a flaw in my opinion but not a great one. It's still better than most other Bond films and Craig and Dench are outstanding in it once again (Bardem is also an excellent bad guy). The script is routine but a little more emotionally involving than usual, especially involving M's character, and Mendes is perfectly apt at directing a Bond film. It's a nice 50th anniversary piece, for the series, and fans will love it.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge23zs5RPrM

A JB movie alright. With some excellent acting and a good script. An opening scene that should get a ticket for kind of over-speed.

And some last half an hour! Stays in your mind for weeks the first time you watch it.

Danny's finest 007 hours on screen besides Casino, in my opinion. Some picks of humour delights the audience very well on the journey, and there's the right James Bond feeling most of the way.

A Spanish guy named Javier Bardem is far out beautiful bad guy. (Can't remember a more stone cold avenging mind for decades in Bond time line....) When MI6 is forced to hide underground, you know it's red alert.

One amazing scene after another, you can't catch breath for quite many seconds. The whole production team should have been awarded a "small Oscar" for getting this together so brilliant. And the "Put-aside-Spectre-story-for-a-while" works great. But it sleeps in the subs, if you know what I mean...

But. I don't like the way Judy Dench (M) and 007 seems to have special feelings for each other. Blabla...I know. M never showed Pierce B that kind of sympathy!:/

Church scene is kind of the ending of Return Of The Jedi; a fellow to me bringing that view. (Darth/Luke confession scene.) I don't think it suits a James Bond film...touching though, anyway.

I rank this Daniel Craig James Bond 007 movie towards his other stuff. To Sean, Roger (R.I.P), George, Timothy, and Pierce's 007 stuff you got to have a distance kind of mind to enjoy them to the fullest.

So I finish with my personal top 6 JB movies. (One from every actor's 007 career.)

*SC: "Goldfinger" (1964.) The 007-movies as we know them starts here. (For sure.)

*GL: "OHMSS" (1969.) Underrated one-show from George L. Entertaining and action-filled. A top 10 JB movie to me. Nevermind the aging of such 60's stuff.

*RM: "The Spy Who..." (1977.) Roger Moore as 007 to the fullest. A 70's classic people today still compares to year fellow movies like Star Wars, Close Encouters, or, for .... sake, Smokey and the Bandit. Way out there, as the 70's was, and a certain '79 movie sealed it.

*TD: "The Living Daylights" (1987.) Very hard to choose one of his (sadly only) two movies. I like both of them a lot. LTK gets to me deeper in between days, but this is more of the pure JB thing.

*PB: "Goldeneye" (1995.) All-in by Pierce Brosnan. He new his work was important and very well sought after. The other 007's of his sadly disappears in too much merchandise. And DAD is quite silly still, uh?

*DC: "Casino Royale" (2006.) No one could expected an entering like this. As his fore-runner, he knew that a first job was crucial. He did it, quite well.

So...now I've completed my 007 reviews. Over 1,5 years since first. Got some likes, got some dislikes. (But I hope it entertains someone out there.)

I adore you (Bond) movie lovers as much as you adore me, and any other kindred spirits!

We've waited four years since "Quantum Of Solace", but 50 years after "Dr No" started the longest and most successful franchise in movie history comes the 23rd James Bond film and the third starring Daniel Craig as 007. I was 14 years old when I attended the spy's first cinematic outing; over the next couple of years, I read all 14 Ian Fleming novels; and, over the last half a century, I have gone along to the theatre to see each new film as soon as it was released.

What was new with "Skyfall" is that I managed to see it a week before its general release at a special viewing for cast and crew when all mobiles were taken off us, all of us were searched, and everyone sat through the credits before applauding a brilliant team effort.

The sense of excitement was rewarded by a superb movie. A cracking opening is followed by a powerful song from Adele which is followed by a storyline that is genuinely distinctive from other Bond movies: more intelligible and more intelligent.

Instead of the archetypal villain as someone crazed by megalomania, we have an adversary, subtly played by a blond Javier Bardem, who is motivated not just by power and wealth but by a very personal sense of vengeance. Instead of a Bond who easily outwits all foes, we have an agent with some obvious vulnerabilities, both physical and psychological, who does not always get his way. Instead of the usual two Bond girls, effectively we have three: French actress Bérénice Marlohe in her first English-speaking part, British actress Naomie Harris in what will prove to be a break-out role, and the redoubtable 77 year old Judi Dench playing M for the seventh time in 17 years.

The film is a triumph for British director Sam Mendes, making his first British movie after such more serious successes as "American Beauty", "Road To Perdition" and"Revolutionary Road". I was shaken and stirred.

Right, let's dispense with the rubbish I've had to endure over the last few months: "James Bond wasn't funny in the last 2 films". Oh, yes he was, you just weren't paying attention.

"Sam Mendes only ever does dramas, he'll be crap at action". Wrong again and Road to Perdition hinted on what he can bring to the table. Plus, if you had reservations about Sam, then you're an idiot! "Is this Daniel Craig's last outing as Bond?" No. He's contracted to do two more. In fact, why do people think this is the last Bond??? After the hype and mild disappointment that was The Dark Knight Rises, Chris Nolan will have to contemplate that he's missed out on the Big One here. Yup, Sam Mendes, Oscar winner supremo for American Beauty was by far-and-away, the only man for the director's chair (with a solid recommendation by Craig himself). What I love about Uncle Sam is that he's not afraid to be bold (we see more blood in this film, despite the 12a rating, but it's subtly done) and he's definitely found some niches with DC's reluctant hero (which Martin Campbell kick-started with Casino Royale). A pivotal ingredient of a Mendes film is the cinematography and with Skyfall, my jaw was dropping at Shanghai (a nod to You Only Live Twice). In fact, my jaw dropped a lot (and that wasn't even Bérénice Marlohe!) And despite the absence of David Arnold, composer Thomas Newman, doesn't disappoint.

It's the 50-year-old debate: Who Is The Best Bond? Daniel Craig: 3 films in & by the time you see Skyfall, there is no doubt in my mind that DC's Bond is the most fleshed-out and three dimensional. His cavalier attitude, his down-and-dirty assassin on the mission, and a very affectionate lover of the ladies, are some of the reasons he scores all the ticks. Sean Connery just wisecracked and shagged birds, but had that physical prowess which DC has equalled, if not bettered; George Lazenby was more of a pantomime; Roger Moore started out well with his debut, but romanticised 007 to the point where he wore flares and befriended steel-toothed villains who were baying for his blood; Timothy Dalton brought back the hard edge Bond was missing and very underrated (kudos to Jason Segel who acknowledged him in I Love You, Man); Pierce Brosnan carried on that darkness with GoldenEye, which was sadly lacking in future outings, along with a suspension of disbelief audiences couldn't buy any longer. DC is Bond, he now owns the role. He's comedy timing is impeccable, his reactions to the littlest things will have you laughing and he knows how to wear tight fitting clothing (thanks to TOM FORD). More importantly, DC can act which is what this role demands...and if like me, you've all watched the Bond films (as DC & Mendes did), Skyfall has done a tremendous job in avoiding past mistakes. The screenplay acknowledges why James Bond is the World's Most Successful Movie Franchise. From the opening credits that references past entries, to Adele's amazing vocals (someone shoot Madonna & Lulu for me; oh and Jack & Alicia too), Skyfall is peppered with nods that may anger or erupt knowing laughter from its devoted fan base. For the record, I laughed, quite a lot.

Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva, is probably the best entrance you'll ever see for a Bond Baddie. He is also by far, my favourite villain of the series and will be a hard act to beat. I really cannot say any more about Bardem, as he is one of many high points that Skyfall has to offer. A stroke of genius from Mendes to give him blonde hair (not only did he remind me of Scaramanga) but the hair does reveal a back story. Javier is proof that grade-A actors do get the best villainous roles, if they're written properly (remember what the Cohen brothers did for him a few years ago?) As I write this, I'm still grinning at Javier's comments...hahahaha! A great actor, just love him and so much going on in that masculine skull of his.

Nothing will touch Bond. Sure, you'll have the wannabe franchises out there (did someone say douchebag, toothless vampires? Not me) who will claim to be the movie event of the year (more like non-event) and the likes of Marvel Comics may one day, catch up. Stan Lee has to look at the accidental success of 007 in relation to his own creations. Sure, I love Spidey, Captain America and Daredevil, but I'm not a sweaty arm- pitted virgin with a fondness for pies and acne; I'd much rather be the man who's dressed to kill, with a Licence To Thrill and smells of the most decadent cologne that my wages will allow. No shame in admitting my inverted snobbery and can thank Ian Fleming for that. If he were alive today, I'm sure he'd approve of Skyfall (considering it's an original screenplay that relies on his healthy diet of sex, guns, snazzy wardrobes and fast cars). Happy 50th birthday, James Bond (you don't look a day over 40!)

Bond will return in October 2014 (I've already booked my tickets!)

Congrats to the production team, especially the writers and the director Sam Mendes, for creating one of the very best Bond movies. If there's any fairness at all in the movie industry, 'Skyfall' will get its fair share of Oscar nominations.

THE GOOD:

• The precredit sequence: They spent almost three months filming this 10 minute sequence. When you see it, you will understand why.

• The lead actors, especially Craig, Bardem and Dench really shine, given a script which has some very interesting plot twists. Especially in the third act, which takes place on British soil entirely.

• Cinematographer Roger Deakins, has made 'Skyfall' the most visually stunning movie of the year. Not since Lewis Gilbert directed Bond movies has a Bond-movie looked this good. Excellent use of colors, light and locations in 'Skyfall'. And no shaky-cam (!) which destroyed the last Bond-movie, 'Quantum of Solace'.

THE "COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER":

• The huge action setpiece from the beginning of the movie never gets topped during the rest of the movie. Some Bond-fans will probably be disappointed by this, since action set pieces are a key ingredient in the Bond franchise.

• The soundtrack by newcomer Thomas Newman: A bit underwhelming when compared to John Barry, and later David Arnold, who scored the last six Bond-movies.

• The return of the exact same Aston Martin DB5 presented to Bond by 'Q' in 'Goldfinger': I think this messes with the whole "reboot"-idea.

I dunno if you guys get this one but comparing to M:I4 Ghost Protocol this was a masterpiece.

Many similarities here and there but still surprisingly good. And really, back to the roots. Only few things made me little disappointed with this one was bond getting too erm. weird. It actually worked.

Not too much explosions (well there are..) not too much cgi-crap etc. and it got cooler every minute.

Really interesting bond for a long time. Actually needs brains a bit to watch this one, if you have seen them all I'll bet you get the idea with this one.

This was a comeback, I waited something like explode everything, slow motion effects, stupid sequences but really really inspired with this one.

One thing I don't get the hype of this movie, it stands on it's own greatly.

For bond fans: 9/10

Skyfall

The quandary with a British man dressed in a tuxedo is that everyone naturally assumes he is a butler.

Thankfully, the dabber chap in this action movie is no footman.

Presumed dead after a botched mission to recover a list of undercover agents, James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns from exile to assist M (Judi Dench) in the wake of an attack on MI6 headquarters.

Barely passing his physical, Bond's reinstated in the agency and assigned to the Orient.

There, he meets the mastermind (Javier Bardem) behind the stolen Intel: an ex-agent intent on killing M.

To protect her, Bond employs his childhood home as refuge.

Revealing more about Bond than ever before, this 23rd installment is not only Craig's best, but, thanks to a tight script and accomplished director, the series' as well.

Incidentally, when visiting the home of a spy you should remove your shoe bombs at the door.

Green Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Daniel Craig has now starred in the two greatest James Bond movies ever made (let the criticism begin), and although he also starred in the worst ("Quantum of Solace"), it wasn't all his fault and can be forgiven. But enough comparing, because "Skyfall" needs no comparison, and would embarrass its competitors anyway. Sam Mendes has delivered a riveting thrill machine of a movie, with a rich character at its heart – James Bond. That's right, the cold, calculating killer reveals even more of his soft side as we delve deep into his past. The emotional feeling we get from the famed agent is entirely due to Craig's acting, who has brought more to the psychological side of Bond than the rest of the players combined. Sure, his films may lack some of the quirk and humor of the earlier offerings, but the character is still finding himself (six years ago he didn't even know what drink to order). And trust me, there is plenty of humor, and a dash of quirk, in this fantastic entry. "Skyfall" gives us a compelling story that we can actually wrap our heads around, as it is nearly as simple as revenge. We get a wildly sinister villain from Javier Bardem (who reminds me of Ledger's turn as Joker, and Bardem is equally Oscar-worthy), a multi-dimensional M from Judi Dench, the introduction of Q and Money Penny, as well as some throwbacks towards the films of old. Directed by Oscar-winner Mendes and filmed with a master's touch by Roger Deakins, this is a Bond film that redefines Bond films (after "Casino Royale" rejuvenated them in 2006) and offers up something for everyone. Two amazingly choreographed (and photographed) action scenes and Adele's soul-stirring theme song, with the accompanying and superb opening credits, are the icing on the cake. So I suppose the 23rd time's the charm. "Skyfall" drops strongly in first place as the best of Bond.

-Thomas Bond

I don't want to watch a James Bond movie and get depressed, does anybody? He is old, and frail, M dies, what is this? A flop. The idea of James Bond worked for years and years simply because you could, not always but at times, count on great entertainment, great action, on a stunning charming sexy elegant perfect man that never fails, that knows everything, that can get any woman on the planet, that makes you smile with his cheesy/ cheeky sense of humor, that what women want to see and guys want beautiful women and amazing gadgets. Fun, fun fun. James Bond should be entertainment not drama. Can please someone tell the producers to quit the doom and gloom and go back to the unreal fabulous world James Bond is leaving into and embrace it once and for all, the more unreal the better. Please, do the audiences across the world a favor, get rid of Daniel Craig and get a real gorgeous man, beautiful to look at, tall and sexy as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnam were, no raggedy, bulky, wrinkly man, James Bond is not a mine worker or a builder and get a sophisticated, G-O-R-G-E-O-U-S, beautiful to look at, a traffic stopper, with a cheeky look, someone you really can believe he can have every woman on earth. Do you need examples? Gerad Buttler, Ewan McGregor, Henry Cavill, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, just few names of possible but certainly believable drop dead gorgeous James Bond. Please don't try ever again to make James Bond " more real, more human". You cannot make him real, he is not supposed to be real!!! He should be everything we cannot possibly be, that is the fun about it, he is a dream taken to the extreme, a rich, extravagant, excessive fantasy, a dream man that is so over the top perfect, that becomes non-threatening for men and a total unadulterated fantasy for women. That's entertainment. That's James Bond. If I want drama I'll go and seek it somewhere else, somewhere it doesn't taste uncomfortably wrong.

The 10 minute intro is intense and jaw-dropping and leads to a perfect artistic visual title sequence along the Oscar-winning song from Adele. After leaving Istanbul and Turkey, where the tantalizing ten minutes take place. The first hour is still interesting and have some character development and some great cinematography from Deakins. We meet the new Q in the National Gallery in front of a Turner and the script is still full of humour, we travel to Shanghai and Macau and it is still sexy and suspenseful. We meet the annoying villain played by Javier Bardem and it almost works... yet, when the action comes back to London and later Scotland, it starts to fall apart. The screenplay becomes uninspired and easy and the Skyfall, Scotland buildup and resolution are utterly awful. Barricade, bombs, gunshot and fire in the field yields nothing interesting (save a few nice shots from Deakins) and the Bond backstory is not explored to any usefulness. Javier Bardem cannot do anything with the revengeful plotter who becomes one-dimensional and the sagging story with no plot.

I enjoyed every Sam Mendes movie, but here you see the difference in writing quality and consistency. This is no Alan Ball! What could have been the best Bond movie ever (like Bird did with Mission Impossible 4 and Matthew Vaughn did with X-Men:First Class) started with promise, but ended up not quite fulfilling its goal. Hope Mendes will choose better written projects in the future.

"Skyfall" is a good film and it made a buttload of money. Whether or not you love it will depend on how much you love stunts, explosions and chases. If you adore them and can't get enough of them, then this film is for you! It's more like "Die Hard" in many ways than a traditional James Bond film. As for me, I don't particularly love stunts and really like more plot and dialog--so it wasn't a film that I fell in love with...but it wasn't boring.

I could review the plot or talk at length about this film, but really don't feel a need. At this point, there are over 1200 reviews for the movie!! But I will mention one problem I found with the film--dumb lapses. In other words, instead of working out logical errors (such as how the MI-6 computer system was so easily compromised as well as why Bond ALONE took on the baddies at the end with no help whatsoever from the British military--even though this took place in Scotland!) the film was too concerned with explosions. As for me, it's a decent film but nothing more.

Daniel Craig's version of James Bond is probably the most engaging one so far. Casino Royale improves the series with grittier and much serious tone. Though, Quantum of Solace is simply just a straightforward action film. Skyfall brings back the spy's classiness and simply tells a compelling story. While the action scenes are magnificent and the filmmaking is fancy. There's also a fascinating performance by Javier Bardem. Skyfall is definitely one of the best Bond films ever.

Skyfall is kind of extraordinary as a Bond film. Classic Bond elements are there but the film tries to go deeper and have more dangerous conflicts. It can be a little bit tamed sometimes but it's best when it explores more about the villain and the threats for M. The film tells the story in a slicker way like how the characters are introduced and the action scenes are executed. The actions scenes are exciting enough. After the gruff high octane opening chase, the rest of the action is all hiding in the shadows and blowing up stuff. There isn't much of a romance, but it's not really necessary for this story.

Daniel Craig is still pretty awesome as Bond and Judi Dench is always great as M. Ben Whishaw gives a nice introduction to the new Q and Noamie Harris is pretty likable as her role. But obviously, Javier Bardem is the standout of the film. He brings a lot of threat and strangeness to the villain. There's also a bit of sympathy beneath the character that he made effective enough.

The most impressive in the filmmaking is the cinematography that classes up every shot of the film. It also has a fabulous production design. There's almost nothing to mention about the special effects until you see the obviously CGI'd lizard. The original Bond theme plays often in parts and the Skyfall song fits well to the film.

Skyfall is a strong Bond film. It tells the story cleverly and adds more depth to the Bond character with elegant filmmaking and brisk, surreal action sequences. It's overall innovative to the series. It has the classy Bond swagger but aims higher with more compelling drama and exciting thrills. Some might get disappointed for not having enough Bond Girl moments but I think we can live without it for a while. In the end, it's an amazing experience that is stirring and brilliantly done.

James Bond has always been my favorite action hero. I have read most of the books and seen all of the movies. While the '06 release of "Casino Royale" revived Bond and "Quantum of Solace" proved a mediocre sequel, "Skyfall" gives Agent 007 a new clean slate. It holds a story of its own, pays homage to other Bond flicks, and introduces characters that all of us Bond fans have come to love over the past years.

Daniel Craig is back as Bond and once again, he embodies the soul of the man. He kicks ass, does the impossible, and even steals the hearts of some hot babes. Pure Bond. Judi Dench is perfect as usual as M. Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris, and Albert Finney give decent performances in their respective roles. Finney is particularly amusing. But in any James Bond film, the antagonist is what helps make the movie really memorable. Javier Bardem proves a true genius as "Skyfall's" villain. He plays a good psychopath (without relying on any reference to No Country for Old Men), and adds strong levels of flamboyance, wicked humor, and even devastating emotion.

It may seem a bit odd that Sam Mendes, a master of dramatic films like "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition" would direct a Bond. Even so, Mendes does a stand up job of combining both character drama and stunning action sequences. In addition, his technical team helps him craft such a success. Thomas Newman delivers a lush score and Roger Deakins beautifully photographs each scene with care and precision. The only downer about this Bond is the overabundance of CGI. While some effects were photo realistic, others were blatantly awful. Agent 007 has entertained us as the world's greatest secret agent. And he has done so for 50 years. No other franchise has achieved such an accomplishment. Of 23 movies, "Skyfall" is one of the best. Let us hope that he continues to be our hero with installments of Bond 24 and 25.

I feel like a grumpy old man these days, realizing that very few movies "do it" for me any more. Skyfall is one of the movies that fail to excite me. While it's certainly competent film-making, it doesn't have that wow-factor and in the end failed to grip my attention properly.

The James Bond-franchise has felt a bit tired and outdated for a long time. While I felt that Casino Royale breathed some new life into it, Quantum of Solace was more or less a dud. This movie seems to pick up on the fact that this sort of movie is more or less an anachronism today, and they play a little with that in the story. The truth though is that I'm not sure Bond has a place in today's film. Especially not since much of what made Bond unique is more or less lost, this movie basically plays like a regular action-movie without any of the real characteristics of a Bond-movie. They have even let go of the gadgetry, and while Javier Bardem is certainly a competent actor, I think he makes a somewhat pale villain. While the Bond-franchise is struggling to get up to date, I feel that it's history is weighing it down.

Disregarding the Bond-factor this is, like I said in the beginning, competent film-making. It looks good, action-scenes are not bad (although not spectacular either). Daniel Craig is his stone-faced self, and Judy Dench is given a lot of space which is never a bad thing. Of course, as is almost standard fare today, the movie is far too long. 30 minutes could easily be cut out without diminishing the movie.

I didn't dislike the movie, it just failed to wow me. I think it has a lot to do with expectations, I want that exciting crazy feeling you got from the older Bond-films where villains where almost magically evil, and they built up entire cities inside mountains with little trains running through them. You just don't get that any more. I miss it, and Bond is a lot less compelling without that magic.

One spectacular action sequence on the beginning and the sadly few minutes Barden is on screen are the only worth things in this far below average action film. Do not get fooled by critics. This is not an art movie and Bond has nothing to do with Bourne.

Bond is glamour and sin; a guilty pleasure about thinks we would like to do (seduce other people, always win a fight, smoke, drink and pay no attention to authority) but morally cannot.

Bond does not need shrink but in this absurd politically correct world; a person who does what he wants must be psycho so 21st century 007 is basically an alienated and unstable person.

Brocolli's please go back to the original. This movie is too boring to be considered and action movie.

The final confrontation is so uninteresting and predictable that you can leave 20 minutes early and feel OK.

The worst part, the only sympathetic character is Silva (Barden) who is basically the bad guy.

Do not lose time with this product

After the disappointment that was Casino Royale, I decided to give Quantum of Solace a miss altogether on account of the very mixed reviews (to date, it is the only Bond film that I still haven't seen); Skyfall, on the other hand, had been getting such unanimous glowing praise that I simply had to check it out for myself, if only to confirm my suspicions that viewers had been letting their sense of relief that it didn't suck as much as the last two films to seriously affect their judgement.

Just as I imagined, those who have been claiming that this is the best Bond ever are only fooling themselves. The film begins in great style with an incredible chase scene, one that really gets the adrenaline pumping, but this promising starts only serves to highlight just how badly mishandled the rest of the film is. With far more conversation than chaos and a running time of well over two hours, Skyfall really drags in places.

The introduction of Javier Bardem's Silva, an intriguing mix of John Malkovich from In the Line of Fire and both Hannibal Lector and Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, improves matters slightly, giving the plot some much needed focus, but the overall lack of action and adventure is still all too apparent (the only other memorable set-piece being a spectacular underground train crash/chase scene), as are the script's more convoluted elements and irritating plot holes.

The final act, which culminates in a showdown between Bond and the baddies at his family pile in the Scottish highlands, fails to save the day, being atypically Bond in almost every respect: the locale is dreary, the cinematography is dark, the weaponry outdated, and the overall tone way too sombre.

It's a shame, because Daniel Craig makes for a good 007—I just hope that they give him the Bond project that he deserves before he gets too old to play the part.

I have been a huge Bond fan for as long as I can remember, I have seen all the films multiple times. With the latest one, Skyfall, Bond is starting to make his way back to his roots but only just slightly.

The plot revolves around a stolen list of MI6 agents that the agency is trying to retrieve while at the same time M's dubious past is catching up with her in dangerous ways. Bond goes from London to Turkey to Shanghai to Scotland with a fair bit of chases and action on the way. M takes a very prominent role in this one and James Bond's character, including his flaws and background, are explored much more deeply than ever before.

But is this what we really want from a James Bond film?

The key issue for me as a long time Bond fan is his style, the formula of Bond. Up until Die Another Day (included) the Bond films had a very uniform style of lighthearted escapism with all the little tweaks that make Bond Bond included. However once Daniel Craig took off with Casino Royale (and what continues into Skyfall) is a Jason Bourne/Mission Impossible style relatively generic action-thriller with some Bond elements thrown in. Bond had a formula that worked very well, there was nothing wrong with it. It is supposed to be a little lighthearted, a little shallow, chauvinistic, stylish escapist entertainment. You went to see a Bond film because it was fun, it was so detached from everyday life and every guy wanted to be like Bond. Now however they have gone down the route of making a very "dark" Bond film, here a lot of attention is on the characters and their problems and and the plot line which has usually been of Bond trying to save the world in some way is utterly secondary in Skyfall. However I as a true Bond fan want to see him in a plot driven save-the-world type of mission, I am not interested in a dark character drama that is close to being indistinguishable from any generic thriller.

That is the biggest flaw of this film: it is ignoring a formula that works so well and instead tries to be something new....but that new is just copying Jason Bourne and other similar films. Skyfall, as it is released 50 years after the first Bond film, is rich in references to the older films which are a delight for a Bond fan to watch out for but they really are more a depressing reminder of "the good old days" and stand as a stark contrast to the cold empty shell that Bond has become today. Particularly the female element, such a key aspect of all previous Bond films, is very toned down and it seems that M is more the Bond girl in this film than any other girl.

However to finish on a high note, the film had a very nice ending from the standpoint of a Bond fan, a hint of things to come which seem to be going back closer to what Bond used to be and should always be.

The film itself isn't bad, its a very interesting thriller. Its only that it isn't very strong as a Bond film but from the way things were heading in Skyfall, it seems that the next Bond film should be a bit closer to what Bond should be.

It's the 50th anniversary of Ian Fleming's James Bond on the big screen, and the character is celebrating that milestone with his 23rd film outing in what would be the longest running film franchise that had seen the mantle being passed on from actor to actor, and helmed by various directors providing their vision of the debonair spy in Her Majesty's Secret Service. Skyfall continues the good work set out by Casino Royale, with director Sam Mendes achieving a remarkable balance between celebrating that milestone jubilee, while setting the stage for the future films with potential to be fulfilled.

Skyfall is an ominous sounding title, and the events here close a chapter, and reopens another, with two more Bond films in the works and may be shot back to back to compensate the rather long gap of four years between this one, and the rather lacklustre Quantum of Solace. We're still firmly into Bond's reboot of sorts with Martin Campbell taking over the reins with Casino Royale after having done so with GoldenEye, which charted Daniel Craig's induction as the new Bond, and two films on we have seen a more serious Bond at work, as compared to his predecessors. This film will change all that, through the subtleties in giving Bond that unmistakable sense of humour, and the introduction of a Q branch boasting a youthful looking Q in Ben Whishaw, which puts the character in very different light from versions of the past, and promising much more fanciful gadgets (or perhaps maybe not, given the rather old school-ness of this Q) in the coming installments.

And by the time the end credits roll, much of the Bond elements missing from the Craig versions so far, will have been introduced, which is a fitting way to celebrate one's 50th year, in a way going full circle. But that doesn't mean alienating the established fan base who grew from the era of Sean Connery's version, or any of the other earlier incarnations. The scribes in Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan managed to weave in a number of easter eggs from James Bond's film history into the movie, which is an extremely nice touch when they appear, to rapturous applause by audience members who instantly recognized those blast from the past nods.

But the story's not all nostalgia, as it deals with a more immediate, direct and personal threat this time round, as compared to the more bombastic, dastardly plans that classic Bond villains usually have. It deals with the challenges any security agency would face in today's environment where the enemy is seldom overtly known, but having gone underground, and is rather faceless, yet ready to strike at any time. Javier Bardem got invited by Daniel Craig to play the villainous Silva, a one time collaborator under M (Judi Dench), but now hell bent on seeking revenge against M for what he calls as sins of the past. Which Bond is now only too familiar with given the prologue's botched attempt at retrieving a sacred hard drive, and M's insistence on sticking to her guns and judgement call when instructing another fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris) to take a shot that resulting in his temporal retirement from active service.

And it's rather interesting here to see a less than able Bond at work, as compared to the earlier versions where his feathers were rarely ruffled. Here, he huffs and puffs his way through, and in some ways, found himself in pretty unfamiliar territory despite London being called home. In most, if not all, of the films, he would be jet setting to exotic locations, and rarely had to operate at home, so having Bond back in London and fighting for what he believes in, is another cinematic milestone that took some 23 years to come to fruition. Daniel Craig's Bond has never been quite the polished, finished article, and this film continues in his development as the master spy, albeit one who is rather out of shape and out of touch for the most parts.

The villains here were a little less colourful than their counterparts in earlier films, and I suppose Bardem's Silva is likely to polarize audiences between thinking he's the epitome of evil, or a rather ineffective one that falls into the usual trappings. There's a distinct lack of a colourful henchman as well, although Patrice (Ola Rapace) did share a very elegantly shot fight sequence with Bond, completely in silhouette, in Shanghai. Sam Mendes puts the style back into the Bond franchise, allowing this installment to stand head and shoulders above other more contemporary spy films, that any Bond film would be proud of.

While other touches such as the introduction of Kincade (Albert Finney) for that connection and bit exploration into Bond's past, and Ralph Fiennes' Gareth Mallory to verbal spar with M, perhaps the Bond girls this time round lacked a little bit of presence. In fact I would like to suggest that THE Bond girl here is M herself, for having this story centered around her and the dedicated screen time she gets, as compared to the likes of Harris' Eve as a field operative with a nice final treatment, and Berenice Marlohe's Severine, which is that classical femme fatale that didn't have much to do, really.

Still, there's a lot more to love in this Bond film that would rank it as good as Craig's initial film, with a more intimate plot setting that strikes closer to the heart and souls of the principal characters involved, while keeping the doors very much wide open for more adventures given a new team set in place. Sam Mendes now has the origins assembled proper, which only promises of better things yet to come in the future. Happy 50th anniversary Mr Bond!

Some people thought Daniel Craig was too much like Bourne and the Bond style film had been abandoned. If you were worried about that fear not - Bond is back.

The film has great stunts & thrills - you'll see this in the long opening sequence. Bond is not burdened with gadgets and still has lots of energy.

Ignore the plot credibility (not as far fetched as some plots like Moonraker) and usual level of general film fiction where it comes to computing.

All the characters are great, from the MI6 team members to the villain (Silva) who acts like a traditional Bond villain. It is very easy to provide details and reveal the plot - the way the trailer was edited means it has not given too much away.

This film will provide thrills & you will laugh more than you did with Craig's last two films.

Classic Bond is back and it was a joy to see it, if you are a Bond enthusiast there are lots of treats in store.

It must have taken an enormous effort to film the chases, the shoot- outs, especially that first one in Turkey (according to the DVD).

But the overall story, although very dramatic and full of ACTION is really so ordinary, just like dozens of other films, (ie, Cruise's) and so many others that I've seen recently. ie, initial set-up of "the problem", followed by numerous chase scenes, and eventually, a great big shooting spree. It gets predictable, inevitable, and rather boring.

The best bits (for me), the fancy computer graphics used to trace Bond through London and elsewhere, and I'm curious to know just where that great big bridge at the start is?

Judy Dench is great of course, and there is a brief appearance of Albert Finney (Masroy in Erin Brockovich), hard to even recognise.

Now I'm tempted to actually read a real Fleming "Bond" story, just to see if he puts all that shooting in?

Me and my oldest son have been doing a bit of pseudo binge watching of James Bond. Every weekend we have been watching two of the movies starting with Dr. No quite a few weekends ago. Last weekend we arrived at the Daniel Craig ones. I had actually not watched those ones before. I have to, grudgingly (I am a Sean Connery fan), admit that the first two we watched were not at all bad.

However, today we watched Skyfall. What the f...? This is not a James Bond movie! If it had been just some other movie I would probably have thought it would not be a too bad one. However, it pretends to be a James Bond movie and as such it is utter crap. It is a bloody Hollywood drama written by someone with a total lack of respect for the Franchise, not to mention the old Bond fans.

James Bond should be out hunting international villains. Villains with a good chunk of bad guy charisma I might add. What we got however was some loathsome prick having a grudge because M didn't come to his rescue when he fucked up.

The British Secret service should also be just that, a powerful organisation protecting Britain (and the rest of the civilized world) from communists, terrorists, criminal superorganisations like Spectre or whatever. Having scenes with M more or less on trial and having to defend herself in front of a bunch of clueless political asshats is just crap and it is definitely not the kind of crap that should be in a James Bond movie.

The whole movie is just full of sensationalist shit, politically correct crap, killing of popular characters, sentimental bullshit and other nonsens of the kind you would expect in a bloody Hollywood soap opera. And what about the new Q? A boring brat with a over-inflated ego. Not fun at all.

Even the special effects are debatable. For example, if you make a subway train crash by blowing a hole in it's path then for Christ sake put some crash test dummies or something in it to at least make some pretense of it not being an empty mock-up!

This is undoubtedly the worst Bond movie ever. My disappointment with this movie cannot be overstated.

As the 23rd official James Bond film overall (and the third starring Daniel Craig), Skyfall starts off fresh and thrilling with a really impressive chase scene throughout Istanbul...then, the film and character literally plunges into the depths of stark new territory. The film does go on to cover some standard James Bond ground for the first act: Bond still hobnobs around casinos, drinks a vodka martini, chases after some girls...but throughout the second half, all of the stakes were raised so substantially, it pushed the characters to their limits. With all the bold, thrilling plot twists and turns, Skyfall is to 007 what The Dark Knight was to Batman: in both cases, the heroes tread along a knife's edge and go through extreme measures to ensure victory.

Rest assured, the film still entertains every bit as much as the other films of the franchise. Despite a few slow parts, most of it (especially in the last half) remains consistently suspenseful, thrilling, exciting, and even humorous at times. There are even a huge number of references and nods to established elements of Bond lore, and by the film's end, it feels as though one age of Bond has passed and another has begun (which is funny, because I thought the transition was more or less complete after Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace; it goes to show that the filmmakers still have some aces up their sleeves).

The story for this film is quite sound, and amazingly thoughtful. From the start, it emphasizes James Bond's seniority, as he suffers in the line of duty, feels the burden of aging, and as politicians put his usefulness into question. The film goes on to talk about the old vs the new, or the past vs the present, and it does an effective job of mixing the old and the new in interesting ways. These key themes and conflicts keep the plot running, and ultimately spurs newfound life and depth in the characters, for both Bond and the villain he ultimately uncovers. Their interactions prove to be quite profound; many of Bond's most memorable villains have been foil characters, but in this case, I really got the feeling that this villain would have been Bond himself if things were different. Given the character motivations, the rising stakes, and the ultimate climax, the film showcases one of the most unusual and most hard-hitting Bond stories of the lot. Purists may find it totally uninteresting, but it'll strike a stronger chord with the modern generation, for the film proves that James Bond is still the man.

As expected, the film looks nice and slick. A bit drab in terms of tone and color design (for better or for worse), but the camera work is decent, and the editing is good (thankfully, not nearly as screwy as Quantum of Solace). Acting is great; Daniel Craig is still perfect as James Bond, while Judi Dench continues to play it tough as M, and Javier Bardem puts on a nuanced performance (despite playing a rather weird, child-like character). Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris are both a pleasure to watch as well. The writing is quite slick, full of wit and depth. This production does a fine job with the sets, props, and costumes. I've seen plenty of folks complaining about the special effects, but they never really bothered me that much. Same with the music; I love Thomas Newman's score, regardless of how different it is from the usual works of David Arnold or John Barry. And, I do love Adele's theme song.

I definitely enjoyed this film, and it would rank pretty high on my list of favorite 007 films. Whether you're a fan or not, the film is certainly worth checking out.

Recommended!

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

James Bond's latest adventure may not be the game-changing piece of cinema that I was hoping for (after CASINO ROYALE, with its new heights of intense thrills and heartfelt emotion), but at least it's a step up from Bond's previous misfire, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. SKYFALL sees Daniel Craig returning to the role for a third time, and there's a distinctly different feel to his story this time around: he's ageing, in many ways past it, something of a dinosaur in a world of youth. The suddenness of this transformation is surprising, but at least it marks new territory for the series.

Not so elsewhere, as for the first time in the Craig canon we see the return of many familiar tropes: Q is back (in the guise of the remarkable Ben Whishaw), along with Moneypenny, the gadgets, the cars. It feels a little odd to see these much-loved elements returning to the fold a mere two films after the film that made a show of doing away with them altogether, but nonetheless they're handled well and with a minimum of both fuss and cheesiness.

A shame, then, that all of this hinges on a central plot that actually turns out to be, well, pretty unremarkable. The slightly creepy Javier Bardem makes for a memorable bad guy – sometimes for all the wrong reasons – but the plot is nothing more than a simple revenge story, and an early sub-plot about Bond's disappearance turns out to have little to do with anything other than wasting forty minutes of the running time. At 2 hours, 23 minutes, SKYFALL feels a little sluggish in places, flabby when it should be pushing on with momentum.

The good news is that the action is much better than that of the previous outing. Marc Forster didn't know what he was doing in his attempts to emulate the shaky-cam work of Paul Greengrass, but director Sam Mendes is here confident enough to jettison the shaky-cam in favour of some elaborate, big budget, old-fashioned set pieces. A blistering chase sequence kicks things off and an explosive home invasion style climax ends things, and in between we get some great stuff going on in the Tube. A trip to Shanghai is less successful, but for the most part, SKYFALL works. Yes, the action is CGI heavy at all times, but this is decent CGI that adds rather than detracts from the experience.

Acting-wise, the film is less successful. For the first time, Craig doesn't feel particularly likable here. His quips and wisecracks have the effect of making him seem conceited rather than smart, and the hot-pot of writers who crafted the script are far too obsessed with creating pretentiously clever lines so that it really grates sometimes. Judi Dench offers the same one-dimensional bullishness that she's been slapping out since Goldeneye, but Ralph Fiennes is a welcome addition to the rank of officials and Rory Kinnear's return is another plus. Bardem is less impressive, hissing out lines like he's in a pantomime, and of the Bond girls Naomie Harris struggles with a light and superfluous character. Far better is Berenice Marlohe as a sultry femme fatale, although sadly she's only given extremely limited screen time. Still, SKYFALL is nothing less than an entertaining movie, despite the many plot holes and occasional inanities; fans will be in their element.

Film critcs raved that this was a return to form -- a classic Bond film. That wasn't my take on it. Casino Royale beat it by miles IMHO. I found it a disappointment.

The visuals were terrific for the most part but the plot was clichéd and full of holes. I understand that Bond films are by nature fantastical but the longer this film went on the less fantastical and the more dull/ridiculous it became.

Daniel Craig's face looks like an immovable bag of spanners throughout whilst Javier Badem's bad blond dye-job simply does not work -- especially when dressed as a policeman. Who thought that was a good idea??? Where were the Bond babes? Eve didn't cut mustard and the other woman was like blink and you'll miss her. The only scene that sizzled ended up being the homo-erotic interrogation but they didn't have the balls to pursue that strand so instead we got more bunkum like ueber English Judi Dench quoting Tennyson and Albert Finney's Hoots, Mon, there's a moose loose about this hoose Scottish Caretaker.

It just didn't work for me.

This 007 movie has a little more action than Quantum of Solace, where James Bond (Daniel Craig) inadvertently exposes secret agents from around the world after a botched mission, causing M (Judi Dench) to relocate MI6. With the agency compromised, M can only rely on Bond to crack the case and follow the trail of perpetrator Silva (Javier Bardem), who has a personal and lethal mission of his own.

The opening sequence was well done, with the very nice "Skyfall" song sung by Adele capturing the majesty, charm and mystery of all the intro songs from previous 007 movies, with the exception of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace; this is a great throwback to Bond's heyday. My favorite part is when Bond and M hop into his Ashton Martin and speeds off, where the classic Bond theme plays in the background. It was also nice to see the introduction of Q (Ben Whishaw), but I wish he would have resembled the classic Q more rather than a computer nerd who looks like he was fresh out of college. And, Javier Bardem makes a love-to-root-against villain, sending Bond on a wild and thrilling chase around the country.

Like the previous two Bond films starring Craig, this movie lacks the charm, suaveness, substance and humor you've come to recognize and love from the earlier 007 movies. This film's atmosphere and storyline were dark, which deviates to the more light-hearted Bond movies of the 70s and 80s. In addition, the time-line for this and the previous two films are supposed to be set before the events of the pre-Craig movies; however, this was not explained very well (i.e., as good of an actress Judi Dench is, they should have had a different actor/actress portray M since she was also in the Pierce Brosnon movies, which are set after the events of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall). The story itself wasn't too appealing.

Overall, not one of the better Bond films. It's just another action flick with some neat special effects, but minus the 007 flavor.

Grade C

In the intro scene we see Bond following some guy. He's got some girl sidekick helping him. Both have comms to MI6 and M keeps telling them to get the guy or else they lose the list. That leads to some ludicrous motorcycle chase scene on Turkish rooftops followed by a chase and fight to top of a moving train. The girl positions herself to shoot the bad guy but Bond keeps getting himself in the crosshairs too. M orders the shot, Bond is hit and falls a couple hundred yards down a cliff and into the water.

In Act II, M attends a very public funeral for the fallen secret agent 007, when MI6 HQ blows up. Retired/vacationing Bond hears the news and returns to England to offer his services. He's in bad shape and doesn't pass the requirement tests to go back to work. Nevertheless, M who's about to forcefully retire assigns him to investigate and get back the list of all NATO secret agents embedded with terrorists.

Act III takes us to China where Bond follows the bad guy from the intro who from one highrise shoots someone in another highrise. In the fight with Bond he ends up falling down the building and Bond finds a casino chip that leads him to Macau where he cashes it in for a lot of money. There he meets a gorgeous girl (Marlohe) enslaved by the big bad guy, Silva. She offers to take him to meet Silva, but first Bond has to survive some thugs. Bond ends up meeting Silva on some deserted Chinese island. He's a former 00 agent played wickedly by Bardem, who as a sign of our times also fondles Bond who takes it with a smile. Choppers arrive and take both back to London.

There he's jailed in some glass cage. A new Q studies Silva's computer only to have his entire system infected and hijacked. Silva escapes and goes after M but his mission to kill her fails. Bond and M set a trap for him offering M as bait.

That takes us to the final act in the Bond family ranch in Scotland and a somewhat unexpected ending.

Bond movies always have been a good mirror of the times. But it's not easy figuring out what this one, and Quantum of Solace say about our times. Both movies present us a Bond in times of recession and cost-cutting. Politicians during hearings to punish M question the whole purpose of MI6 and secret agents. There are no gadgets at all in this movie. There is no glamor. While we do get one casino scene, there's no gambling involved, just fighting as the Bond movies continue their descent into Bourne territory, except that Bourne movies excel at what they are. The locations are rather unspectacular. We have seen Turkish rooftops a few times too many recently and fighting on top of moving trains, well, that's been going in since westerns. The intro scene looks like something out of some silly Michael Bay movie with cars flying around. And I don't mean that as a compliment. The intro credits are lame. They manage to show just 1 or 2 girls. In general, the girls in the this movie aren't really Bond girls the way we know them. Poor Marlohe gets a a very thankless role. And they did something with her teeth to ruin her otherwise stunning smile, the lousy make up doesn't help either.

For some reason this movie is more about M than anything else. Frankly though, who cares about her? It's also more introspective and subjective. It's less about the mission than about the audience learning about Bond's past and Bond learning about himself, or some such thing. It just isn't handled well in this movie. The revelations about M's ruthlessness should have been handled as such, as surprises. Perhaps then we could care more. Personally I'm not all that interested in Bond's background. Again, if it were handled better in a more cursory way it would be more meaningful instead of tying to make it of supreme importance when there is really not a whole to it.

The significance of the title says it all. One hears "Skyfall" and thinks of some sophisticated villain trying to take down planets. Instead it's the name of the Bond family ranch... That's more or less how this entire movie works- very underwhelming. It's a back to basics movie, very limited in scope and ambition with a flawed direction and lots of plot holes. It's a Bond for a new generation, a generation that has never seen the greatness of previous Bond movies. In the past, Bond movies were in a league of their own. This new Bond sets standards fairly low and now has to compete with Bourne and that kind of movies. And now it even has to compete with excellent TV series like Strike Back that have more of a Bond spirit than Skyfall. Skyfall is stunningly unspectacular and not a whole lot of fun.

It's just ironic how this Bond film"Skyfall" gets a 7.8 rating here on IMDb and yet almost 90% of people's reviews are all negative?.

I happen to like the first two Bond films with Craig as Bond. I never liked Brosnan at all, but Craig really created a more charismatic Bond almost as Connery did in the "Doctor No". I remember years back reading a article I read in the Calendar of the LA Times reading an article about Craig picked as the new James Bond and how the whole franchise will restart from the beginning with "Casino Royal" and it was a great concept and they really pulled it off with a director Martin Campell who kept the film interesting because it was focused on developing the character of Bond again rather than just action packed scenes.

"Quantum" that was the sequel to Casino Royal that again set up another super power evil corp "Quantum" which as "Doctor NO" did with Spector. Bond films have always been about spying to discover these kind of people with power and criminal intent, I think Skyfall departed with that concept when they planted the seeds of "Quantum" in the first two films and and suddenly it became a soap opera about M in Skyfall with some deranged lunatic's taking revenge on M?.

Even the last film "Quantum of Solace", as much as it was scorned it was still far superior film compare to this turkey "Skyfall" which really is among the worst Bond film to date right next to the "Timothy Dalton" Bond series.

I happen to like Sam Mendez as a director for films like "American Beauty" but I think this Bond genre was way over his head. He was just all over the place; there was so many bad scenes that just hang on the screen, Bond was absent being Bond, the soap opera with M and her reciting poem in court was just awful. What are we watching here people?. I liked the idea of introducing the new "Q", but maybe someone older with a sense of humor, rather than the college nerdy look whose screen presence was just annoying to say the least. Even the casting of the new "Moneypenny" is just a miscast, again Naomie Harris is a great in other films I have seen her in but sorry not as Moneypenny?.

From the first action scene where Moneypenny shoots Bond by mistake but still has enough time to shoot the villain and she pauses; I had a feeling from that scene alone that this film is heading the wrong direction. Then there is the absence of Bond being dead and where we have no idea how he got rescued by whom?. There are scenes where he is dressed as a some limo driver in the airport and following a guy and it was just so lame, the time we spent watching him in his car and driving to the airport and waiting with sun glasses was a waste of screen time for a Bond film. Theree was another scene where Bond is captured with Silva's men, Silva has a gun in his hand, then there is a helicopter and Bond manages to disarm the Silvia's men but the next shot Silvia has no gun in his hand?...I mean how can a director like Mendez screw up a shot like that on a huge budget film like this?. Those fight scenes in the casino were just so lame and so poorly choreographed as if you are watching some B movie, it was just awful and boring to watch. There was just continuous tedious scenes when Bond is trying to hide M, by getting his old Austin Martin and that old house in the country, it just was a waste of screen time going no where. In the entire history of all the Bond films M's character was just a minor character that appeared in maybe 4 scenes in the entire movie,but ever since they cast Judie Dench as M, then M became a major character in the Bond series.

It's amazing this genre or franchise has lasted this over 50 years, when all the books Flemming wrote were made already. Craig was a miracle to restart the Bond franchise for a whole new generation but I guess today's audience is not concerned about story as the Connery generation was. They just want to see if Bond will save the world by killing the bad guys. "Skyfall" had potential for a great Bond film but it really was a disaster and yet it made so much money and had great critic reviews; which goes to show how much BS can studio shovel with the right marketing to this dummy down generation.

I just read Mendez is directing the next Bond film, I bet even he was surprised he was picked to come back. This time they are introducing the oldest Bond nemesis "Ernst Stavro Blofeld"; I dread to think how Mendez will manage to screw that up too?. Ever since Brocolli's daughter took over managing the Bond Franchise she has made some really bad choices; she just does not get the Bond series like her father Cubby did.

The Bond films ended with Roger Moore, that was all the Bond books, what we have now is a mutated butchered studio version of what Flemming had written who would be rolling in his grave if he knew a two hour Bond film was spent on M.

For twenty-something films, Bond movies have always followed the same "Bond formula" (although who can blame them, it's mostly enticing and satisfying to watch: see Casino Royale). But not anymore. This is the first Bond film that captures everything a Bond film should have - the amazing score, spy action, feats of impossibility, classy and luxurious settings, a criminal mastermind, near apocalyptic scenarios...etc. yet doesn't feel at all cliché. For the first time, the tables have been turned against Bond from the very beginning: he is getting older, his abilities have deteriorated, and he is no longer equipped with futuristic gadgets we're all so used to. From there, the plot develops as a typical Bond film... or so it seems... until things really start escalating. Without spoiling much, I'll just say that the plot takes many turns that immediately sucks viewers in. Unlike many other mediocre bond films, the plot in this leaves viewers engaged and invested in the story. Moving beyond the plot, the characters in this film are also portrayed perfectly. Although some may think it's a bit cliché - a classy womanizing spy, a badass criminal mastermind, a beautiful and seductive damsel, this is a Bond film after all. And these characters are all so very classy, leaving viewers incredibly satisfied upon viewing. But what makes this film a true masterpiece is the cinematography. From the first scene to the end, the tone and environmental shifts create a surreal and artistic experience. Many shots are incredibly artistic, with amazing background contrasts, focus usage, closeups that capture the grandeur of a exemplary Bond film. Finally, the colors and tones of this film paint a truly unique experience, where the many shifts between cold and warm colors accompany the rise and fall in plot points, generating suspense and emotion to the film.

It doesn't matter if you usually watch Bond films or not, I'd recommend this film to anyone who remotely likes action and suspense. The cinematography and plot are both atypical of Bond films yet excel spectacularly in the spy film genre.

Celebrating 50 years of bond history and 23rd film in the successful bond series "Skyfall" opens up with a good action sequence as usual franchise of bond movies followed up by an average title score. Basic plot of the movie isn't tough bond has show his loyalty towards his boss "M" as she gets into a trouble this time. The film isn't just about Bond it's about M and her journey over the years as the head. The movie emphasises on is M's relationship with bond. Coming to the casting Daniel has done a good performance but sometimes he is more like Bourne rather bond type. Judi as "M" has done a great job on her role as usual to say the she is the women lead with a meaty role. The bond girls didn't much screen space allocated. The villain this time Javier Bardem as a crazy, lunatic, venomous Silva has done a brilliant job. But his makeover was menacing with a blonde hair. We could say he was like The Dark knight heath ledger type of villain. "Q" by Ben whishaw (Perfume movie hero) looks apt in the role. The director Sam Mendes gives more importance to the script, dialogues where this movie being the most emotional Bond movie yet like bond revisiting his home and M's farewell. This movie has got standard ingredients like oriental music, very few gadgets, backless gowns, attracting villain girlfriend, tricky action sequences but as a limited version where story sentiments and dialogues takes over much. But comparing to the last flick Quantum of Solace this is definitely a better one. Verdict: Low on gadgets, high on drama and closer to some realistic stuff. Dramatic first half and a speedy second half.

Bottom line: For those die-hard bond fans whose expectations are more fun, charm, beautiful girls, big sets and more signature tunes of 007 certainly you will feel this is not enough.

The thing that really struck me about "Skyfall", Daniel Craig's third outing as the iconic character James Bond after the amazing "Casino Royale" and the very so-so follow-up "Quantum of Solace", was that this film is very much a transitional piece for the character. "Casino Royale" and "Quantum" are both very much products of their time, taking cues more from the Bourne films and other gritty reboots than the classic Bond movies from yester-year. This film begins to really transition and change that, reconciling Craig's previous dark, brooding take on the character with the classic, suave Bond we knew for decades before. And it works. It works darned well.

Directed by Sam Mendes and written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan, "Skyfall" is the 23rd entry in the Bond film series, although it's technically the third entry in the Daniel Craig Reboot series. (As this film, along with "Casino Royale" and "Quantum", are essentially the start of a new continuity)

After a riveting, exciting opening chase sequence that puts the shaky-cam opening chase from "Quantum" to shame, Bond (Craig) is accidentally shot by fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris), and presumed dead after his limp body tumbles into a river. Bond is of course alive, and using his presumed death to retire from MI6. However, after a terrorist bombing on MI6 and threats against the life of MI6 head M (Judi Dench), Bond is forced back into action. With the help of the new Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond tracks the villainous Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), attempting to stop his plot of vengeance against MI6.

The acting is essentially flawless all around. Craig seems more comfortable with Bond, still maintaining his dark edge, while adding a bit of the classic suave and complexity to the character. Dench is a joy, as always, as M. Naomie Harris is a lot of fun as Eve, Bond's fellow agent. Ben Whishaw is fantastic as the new Q. And Javier Bardem is both tragic and terrifying as Silva, the lead villain. Other characters played by the likes of Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney are also fantastic.

The production is also top-notch. Mendes' direction is some of the best in the series. Thankfully, he eschewed the shaky-cam work that Marc Forster introduced in the prior film, and presents us with some first-class action, without relying too much on CGI. The script is tight, concise, and simpler than previous films, giving us a more elegant, easy-to-follow-yet-still-deep-and-complex storyline, which was nice as a few prior films got too convoluted. Costume and production design are absolutely gorgeous. There is almost nothing to complain about with the production.

I usually try to think of a few things to complain about, but here, it's near impossible. This is a flawless Bond film and a flawless picture in general.

I loved "Skyfall." It's possibly Craig's best outing yet, and re-invigorates the franchise yet again. A perfect 10 out of 10.

From a parachute assignment with her majesty the Queen over Danny Boyle's inspiring set at the opening ceremony of London 2012 to the misty depth's of the Scottish highlands, Mr Bond faces his most injurious test by having to decide between the two most significant women in his life, thus providing us with a glimpse of who the true Bond girl is.

The consensus of Skyfall's Bond has seen 007's maturities establish with a distinctive rawness. We now have a rigid skinned agent whose experiences have seen sorrow and anguish in his past but seen a persona who has benefited from the audience's acceptance of the solemn tenor and less extravagant gadget themes throughout the franchise's fifty year stint. Daniel Craig has provided a new dimension to Bond, predominantly fitting within the criteria of the modern shift of seriousness within film. His wonderful talents pursue the conventional raw emotions that Bond feels in this outing. He crucially understands the material from 007's past and motions of the present determine the character's motivation. The 23rd instalment brings the modern Bond to his most atmospheric challenge yet. Skyfall sees Craig embark on one of icon's most testing missions. His loyalty to M (Judi Dench) is placed under detrimental restraint. Not only does he have to scuffle with a silky but uncomfortable nemesis in former MI6 employee Silva (Javier Bardem), Craig is set the challenge of performing even more charismatically on the eve of Bond's fiftieth anniversary, turning a domestic threat into a personal one.

This episode breathes an air of familiarity as we are invited into the notion of a qualified agent, suffering from an ageing atonement with an element of vulnerability and victimisation but his wise and highly articulate prowess in his field play dividend, sticking to his prehistoric loyalty to MI6. The mortal human factor is a blessing to see and but Craig's posture on screen counters this with beautiful arrogance and the mental determination of Bond. A titanic sum of thought has gone into this outing. The franchise seemed to be in a perilous state and needed to be reborn.

We are led to believe the perilous trip that Bond has journeyed since the days of Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan has led to this very moment. We develop a perceptive of Bond's continuation away from subsistence of spy life, learning of his life without parents and being invited into his personal routes before M's motherhood role took shape. This series seems to build relationships between each of the films since Casino Royale. On screen growth between Craig and Dench would propose a step-parent affiliation. Certain tags are given through the dialogue and symbolism in character gesture and movement. Besides M, Craig develops a healthy relationship with the very woman who places a rifle bullet through his canvas which rather convincingly reminds us of the characteristics between Bond and Miss Moneypenny.

Beyond the tone of severity we are taken on a voyage to relive some wonderful tones and mimics that remind us of the majestic overtones over the last fifty years, particularly in the Brosnan era. Preambles such as an academic censored handgun are imputed whilst annotations on exploding ballpoints are snorted at, in particular by the striking, and resourceful Q (Ben Whishaw). The selection of artiste for Q is rather smart, using a moderately nameless and inexpert big screen actor to play an archaic character, following the footsteps of John Cleese, Whishaw adds much sophistication to the role.

Sam Mendes' first attempt at a Bond is undeniably an endeavour he can be proud of. He has deliberated the story with a glorious attitude and tendency, blessing us with some gripping contrasts in China to elevate the superiority in design and technology, and then stripping back the intensity with raw sentiments across the landscape views throughout the Scottish highlands and the country's vast dissimilarities in culture from London. The sombre graphic of the narrative offers complexity and heavy watching is sometimes required but this is not too punishing on its audience after Mendes hurls Bond into a moving train cart and then allows him to briefly pause to adjust his shirt cuff, a gesture that relieves impetus in the scene without entirely concluding the anxiety. Aside from the rich style and glamour of China and London, 007 gets gritty in the swarming markets of Turkey, a replicate of his past lethally reminding us of From Russia With Love. Globe hiking has forever been as crucial to the franchise as the harmonious gadgets, with an elegant ray of the map across all of its geographical coordinates, sizable body counts, sports cars and crafty arsenal are expected within the genre, there have been a few blunders down the years and a couple of forgotten suit bearers. Mendes and Craig work magnificently in creating the epic that Bond enthusiasts have been longing for.

Skyfall was not a typical James Bond with cool gadgets and cars , high octane action scenes. It is purely story-oriented which would be little bit disappointing for James Bond fans.

M's past comes back to haunt her and is threatening to kill her. 007 must track down the killer at any cost before he comes forward to hunt down M

Directed by Sam Mendes ( American Beauty) , Skyfall starts off very well with well choreographed beginning scene(usually the charm of a James Bond film) but loses the steam somewhere down the line and it will make you wonder if you are watching a bond film or just some other action drama. The problem with Skyfall is the must-see trailer which will build the excitement but will be sagged down by weak screenplay. Before watching Skyfall , I heard a lot about the mindblowing reviews but was surprise to see whether if the movie was even close to those glowing reviews. Even Sam Mendes direction is not in form. James Bond film is more of punching dialogues , high octane action stunts( like Casino Royale) and cool gadgets which is clearly missing here. Story is catchy. Screenplay could have been more crispy … action scenes are just about fine. Dialogues are less impacting. Cinematography is nice- watch for the beautiful camera work done while filming action scene in the skyscraper of Shanghai city. Performance by Daniel Craig , Judi Dench and Xavier Bardem is what drives the movie. Each of them played their character with convinced attitude.

Skyfall could have been made much better considering it to be directed by Sam Mendes but I felt less satisfied with movie on the overall basis. If you going to watch as a Bond film you will be disappointed .. or watch it otherwise Average 2.5 /5

Aaah !! To be James Bond....

You chase a bad guy up and down an exotic city in the mystical orient ( Istanbul---Constantinople for those waiting to see it liberated from the clutches of the Turks ) first in a car and then on a motorbike making impossible jumps without hitting or killing any living soul....

....and then the chase continues on a train until you are shot at the hands of a delectable black girl....

But lo !! you still survive the shot by falling deep into water , and are saved to end up being caressed tenderly by the loving fingers of a lovely woman in bed.....

This whole action sequence is shot beautifully making it one of the best starts to a Bond movie ever---making you ask for more....

But the more does not come at all....

Instead what you get to see is a plot to expose the identities of all MI6 agents on Youtube metamorphose into a mission to save Bond's boss M from the revenge of an old MI6 agent who is out to settle old scores with her....

And what a villain is the old wronged MI6 agent....all blonde and gay....

Yes , gay enough to lay his hands on James Bond's muscular thighs stroking them with lust in his eyes....

And with this gay villain getting centerstage , the women are sidelined....we don't get to see Bond on top of the delectable black girl at all....and the one he gets to bed is shot dead within a short time....

Yeah ,the exotic locations are all there photographed with skill---from the hideous beauty of Shanghai ( hideous because it was built by kicking out 3 million poor people from their homes ) to the modern wonders of Macau....

.....And so are the high tech bond gadgets like an antique car that fires machine gun fire from hidden guns to a pistol that is coded to James Bond's palm prints....

But ultimately it comes down to a showdown with the villain by the use of old shotguns and makeshift bombs in Bond's ancestral home in Scotland with an old geezer as ally....

So can James Bond prevent MI6 operatives from being exposed ?? And most importantly , can he save M from being killed ??

Go and see the movie for that....

But is it worth the watch ?? I think not....

For there are too many loose ends---like how does James survive the shot and fall from the train....and how does the villain escape so easily after being caught and held amidst tight security by MI6 ??

The one thing that shines is Daniel Craig as James Bond---who is all brawn and muscle and acting performance....

But to me at least , it wasn't enough to carry the film entirely on his ( admittedly broad ) shoulders....

The action is bunched in at the start and at the end with the middle of the movie showing all talk but no action....

Music is decent....

But the movie is barely decent....

Verdict---just about okay...

Going into this film (and it truly is a film, that's how beautiful it is), I had heard all the hype from overseas, and so I was expecting it to be good, but not this good. I was worrying that it was going to be too action-heavy, but its not: it takes the time to establish relationships between the characters, so when there is action, it actually matters. I'm really not qualified to say if this is the best Bond film, or even if Daniel Craig is the best Bond, but I can say that this is by far the best of the one's Craig has worked on, and I also believe Craig is incredibly believable as Bond--he's a person, with actual emotions and feelings, rather than just a spy.

Now even though I gave this film a perfect rating, it is not perfect--it's absolutely fantastic, but of course a few things could've been better. However, because of the way this film ends, I could not rate it anything but a ten. The ending is absolutely mind-blowing. To say much about it would be to give away the entire film, but I will say this: they have changed the future of the series forever (and by series, I mean the ones staring Craig).

Speaking of Daniel Craig, I have to praise him even further. He really is an amazing actor, and brings so much to this role. I think this is one of his best performances--he might've even been better here than in last year's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, although that's a close call. Like I said earlier, though, his Bond is the most grounded--he's still a tough, cunning spy, but here he manages to appear more vulnerable. Other actors did a great job as well: Javier Bardem is terrifyingly sly as Silva, Naomie Harris does a good job as the rookie field agent, and Bérénice Marlohe has a short but memorable role as the complicated Sévérine. Additionally, the dynamic between Ralph Fiennes and Daniel Craig is fantastic, as well as the dynamic between him and Ben Winshaw's ingenious Q.

The true performance, however, comes from none other than Judi Dench. This is by far her biggest role as M, as well as her most impressive performance in along time. In my opinion, her character's storyline makes the film. The emotion she was able to bring to her character while still staying stern in the presence of others is absolutely breathtaking, especially in the courtroom scene and the incredibly emotional ending.

The locations, too, helped make this an amazing film. From the chase scene in Istanbul-- which was one of the best I've seen in a while--to the towering heights of Shanghai; from the reinvented MI6 in London to the beautiful moors of Scotland, the sights are impressive throughout. Equally as impressive is Roger Deakins' cinematography, which was truly stunning and made the film all the more beautiful.

Skyfall truly is one of the year's best films. It may lag a little bit in the middle, but that's only a minor fault as it hurdles towards the climactic ending. One of the best parts for me, actually, was finding out the meaning behind the title, and, however subtle it was, it was a great moment and perfectly integrated into the plot line.

This is now a different Bond. I'm sure the writers realized what they were doing when the made one of the major themes resurrection, as after the alright-but-disappointing Quantum of Solace, Bond needed to be reinvented--again. They have made some sacrifices, but ultimately succeeded. This Bond is modern, but true to how the books make him appear. There are also some great references to older gadgets, like the exploding pen and ejector seat, although they don't necessarily feature in the film. Bond nowadays is more about ingenuity rather than gadgets, and he is all the more realistic and impressive for it.

There are a lot of movies that are really popular but you do not like them, then there are those movies that many people like you do not understand why and why you need a time or look at them again and slowly understand what people love and then there the movies are probably the columns of opinion because exactly the things the other people love about you just did not like you. "Skyfall" is not one of those movies that is a movie I did not like from the first time and with each new watch it got worse and worse. I still can not understand why anyone can like this movie and still am still shocked to see how many people worship this movie. That people love this movie is bad enough but that they praise this movie as much as anyone else that is the biggest tragedy "Skyfall" contains no suspense the drama is passable but the effects are funny there is no real plot I third of the movie is just jumping from one place to the next and so I really really took a long time to follow the process of the movie It's always going to be bad if you only see an action movie but you have to read through the Wikipedia article to get the plot (I mean that's not Blade Runner what the complicated storyline?), but I'm a lot more baffled the train that arrives so well on the ground nothing done dirt that has no special quality or anything special. I even go so far as to say that the film would not even have received a third of the money of praise or prizes if not for the brand name James Bond. Everything in this movie is stupid the characters you suffer can die all the ones you do not like die sometime later but then not in a good way, Javier Bardem looks like they painted him the visage, and the movie is literally anti-climatic you because the entire last third is even more boring than the rest of the movie. So the movie starts okay, then gets annoying then gets boring and ends in just awful. I do not understand today it was the people who loved this movie so much and I honestly lost interest in the answer, of course I know the tastes are always different and not all like that but if he changes me half a puzzle want and say that is the most beautiful picture in the world although over half missing and what you see looks like ass then I miss the words. My conclusion, of course, is that the James Bond films are not always the best in the world and I know that they are made for entertainment only because none of these films will get you an Oscar or be represented very much in the general movie encyclopedia but Skyfall is absolutely shitty, Direct are pretty stupid, the drama is tolerable, the record is super stupid, the end is a single insult and the music would be pitiful even for a Disney musical. This movie should die.

Agents for MI 6 are exposed. MI 6 is attacked. MI 6 relocates. M (Judi Dench) is on the hook for letting things get out of hand. Silva (Javier Bardem), once a trusted agent, feels betrayed by M and vows to kill her. M knows the only man she can trust is Bond, James Bond (Daniel Craig) to make things right. Let the games begin.

Most of the action in here occurs in the first 20-minutes. And, this action is incredible. I had to duck numerous times. There is more very good action later on but nothing like the first 20-minutes. How they did all that is a mystery. Wow !

I want to say this was the best Bond, James Bond ever, but I cannot. Bond, James Bond is being rebooted. Bond, James Bond wears a beard for too long a time. Not good. Looks too old with it and is hardly recognizable. Q (Ben Whishaw) is now a very young person who Bond, James Bond doesn't quite trust at first. Q only gives Bond, James Bond 2-toys to help him get out of jams. Only 2-toys? Oh, the horror! There is no baccarat or even poker although Bond, James Bond goes to a casino in China. Bond, James Bond gets his vodka martini, but the words "shaken not stirred" are never heard. There is no quirky one-liner Bond, James Bond is noted for after a tussle with a bad guy. The twinkle in the eye is never there. It was always there with the other guys, especially with Sean Connery. Bummer.

Yes, changes are afoot for Bond, James Bond. You will be surprised to see who the new Moneypenny will be; but will Bond, James Bond toss his hat on the rack as he encounters Moneypenny before he sees M for his next assignment? These things are not important in the grand scheme of things, but they are things that endeared us to Bond, James Bond. And, we miss them. Bring them back.

There are some other changes afoot but to reveal them would give too much away. However, the biggest thing in here is the villain, Silva. In past Bond, James Bond escapades there was never anything personal with the bad guys. This time it is very personal as you will see. And, yes, Javier Bardem as Silva is very scary.

I feel the producers of the Bond, James Bond movies are making a mistake in aging everyone including Bond, James Bond. We do not want that. Like a favorite cartoon where the characters never age is the way Bond, James Bond should be portrayed. If they keep on the way they are going we will need a new Bond, James Bond soon. Hey, Daniel Craig is no spring chicken, you know.

All my misgivings aside, this was still a very good Bond, James Bond movie. But, keep the white whiskers out of all this . Keep Bond, James Bond forever young and bring back those subtleties that keep us saying "Bond, James Bond is our guy forever" If you bring back the quips and the twinkle in the eye we will forgive everything else. I miss Sean Connery, don't you? (10/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No, only brief soft stuff

As I was watching...first scene.......an hour into the movie...another hour into the movie....then finally as I'm sitting here thinking this review up, I mean to be complacent, nice with this film and the people who liked it. Personally, I was bored to death with this thing; but like I said, I'll cut it some slack a bit, because maybe I'm just not a Bond guy. My direct criticism is this: first scene is some of the same. Action, action, action. Then, every once in a while, the clever little quips, the pretty girls and the tension-building scenes including them, casino-like places, chic futuristic aesthetics, a cold Bond (cold as ever), and even the inclusion this time (which I won't comment) of a hint at Bond's sexual curiosity (as in having had gay sex before, to be perfectly clear).

In the complacent side of my mind, there's this: it's Bond, what do you expect ?! It's supposed to have all this ! It's supposed to be smart-ass-ish, full of action, artsy, fashionable, superficial yet classy, pretty girls etc...

In the no BS part of my brain though, this: action, fine, but renewed, not the SAME OLD car chases and fights on trains. Girls and casinos and the one-liners and company? Who can possibly be a fan, a genuine justified fan of such redundancy when this is the EXACT SAME FORMULA for, what, 25 James Bonds now ?

Too long, plot all over the place, NOTHING new (except Bond is bi...), heavy-handed ending, typical villain, the girls sucked (nothing like the usual impressive entrances and all...) Theme was nice, and even though I hate Adele's voice the composition itself is well written...

This thing *could* be criticized for longer, but there's no point. Overall, that's all that needs to be said. Flat and repetititititititititititititititit...........(sorry, got stuck here)...titititive.

Someone has decided to use my favorite fictional character to drive a plot he doesn't belong in.

Sure, the story of an aging professional woman coming to terms with the ethical sacrifices she'd felt compelled to make over a storied career sounds like an interesting one. You could tell that story by casting her in the role of metaphorical mother to two opposing sons, two outcomes, if you will. One good. One bad. Was her time on earth worth it? Were her sins forgivable? Has she engendered any loyalty? It all depends on which son wins the duel. Which of the two personified outcomes prevail would depend entirely on her objective worth in the world. Who will win? The good son or the bad? Both have reason to doubt her. Both fear and respect her. Both are defined by her.

Does this sound like a James Bond movie to you?

No.

Want to know why?

Because nobody defines James Bond but James Bond, that's why.

Because mothers and sons, family and regret, doubt and redemption are not what the 007 franchise was ever about or should ever be about.

James Bond movies are about what's possible when you subtract fear from the equation. About the value of knowing what to do in diverse situations. About all the intangible benefits of a little education and refinement. About how it's possible to act courageously and even violently without losing one's humanity or dignity. James Bond movies are about honor and duty, comradery and treachery, sex and decadence, greed and power, revenge and justice. They're about overcoming long odds through perseverance and cool-headedness. They're about the often unexpected shapes evil comes in, from the diabolical mastermind to the flattering seductress. They are about not allowing oneself to be impressed with evil, however monstrous its scope. It is escapist fantasy about living in the real world.

The joy in making new Bond films should come in adapting these themes to ever more modern sensibilities. Ever more modern circumstances.

'Skyfall,' the latest so-called installment in the 007 franchise feels as if it were written for someone's grandmother after a visit with a shrink. What does some aging mother's legacy turn out to be? Who gives a sh!t. I paid for a James Bond movie. You don't get to pepper a bunch of chase scenes into a film and expect me to let it pass as a Bond flick. No.

No.

In the present offering, we meet our protagonist, James Bond, hard at work as usual chasing some cat down who's boosted a hard drive that can expose secret agents all over the world. Better catch him! But because of a judgment call made by Dame Judi Dench's 'M,' Bond ends up shot and left for dead. She's sad but unapologetic. He's p!ssed enough to stay away from Mi6 HQ until it comes under attack by a master hacker named Silva, played by Javier Bardem. Bond comes in from the cold and proceeds to fail all the tests required to return to active duty.

Luckily, Mom's there to make it all better. This isn't my analogy, mind you; Bond actually calls her Mom or "Mum" throughout the film. She fudges his results for him so he can go run and play with the other boys.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say, James Bond does not miss on the shooting range. He just doesn't.

But the woeful "humanization" of the Bond character doesn't stop there. At various points in the film, he is taunted for his age by a lover, mocked as obsolete by a nerd (the new 20-something Q) and forced to feign homosexuality.

Seriously, who wrote this? It's not that he's challenged by friend and foe alike at every turn, it's that the challenges go largely unanswered. Bond as dumb lug who knows how to take his lumps like a good monkey boy. Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave.

Anyway, Silva's p!ssed at M and for good reason. No really, you'd be p!ssed and want to kill her, too. Honest to God, it was a total betrayal. M totally and willfully betrayed Silva and we're all supposed to just route for her on the grounds that that's just life in the intelligence business. Silva's just some weird gay guy with bad teeth after all and probably doesn't look nearly as good in a tailored suit as Daniel Craig. So who cares what his beef is. Right? Craig's the good son.

Are Silva's motivations explored further? Are the commonalities between Silva's and Bond's view of M's behavior explored? Are the ironies of the fact that the biggest new threat to the UK's national security arose directly out of M's leadership style explored at all?

No, no, and quite the contrary. In a scene remarkable for its lack of irony, M defends Mi6 to a governmental review board just as one of her own agents comes in to shoot up the joint.

The final confrontation between good son and bad plays out over about 45 minutes of retarded action sequences featuring Craig loping around in thousand dollar suits like a confused prom queen and bustling Mum off to the countryside to hide from the bad guys like a pair of useless weiners. If you've seen 'Patriot Games,' you've seen how this stupid movie plays out.

And last, but not least, Bond does not drink beer.

Vodka Martini, please. Shaken, not stirred.

You'll need one after this piece of crap.

After a long four year wait for the next 007 film to come out due to MGM's financial issues, SKYFALL finally hit cinemas and it was more than worth the wait. It's obvious that the crew behind the movie took a lot of time and effort perfecting what could be considered as the best Bond movie in years. What unfolded before my eyes wasn't just a movie but an experience.

What made SKYFALL great was that it took everything that makes a James Bond movie great (exotic locations, action, a threatening villain, etc.) and improves every single one of them while at the same time adding new ones. SKYFALL finally returns the franchise back to its roots so no longer do we have the boredom and excessive BOURNE influence seen in the previous two installments; this is a James Bond film just like the old days where entertainment and story are balanced. The movie also serves as a love letter to the fans with the numerous references to the old Bond movies and its old-school style; anyone who's seen Bond since the start will love SKYFALL, all the way from the nostalgic theme song opening to the climatic confrontation at the end.

The cast fit their roles perfectly and redefined established characters in the Bond mythology. I have no doubt that Daniel Craig can be a great James Bond but it was only now that he was given a good James Bond script to work with; Bond is still the playboy and efficient MI6 agent but now, he's also a human being. The same goes for the rest of the cast; one of the new things added into the film which was rarely seen in previous Bond films was the complexity of the characters. They're still the usual mainstays of a Bond film (a terrorist mastermind, M, a bureaucrat, the Bond girl, etc.) but now they're all human beings with motivations that drive their actions. They don't rely anymore on simple politics but now they rely on personal issues to drive them. This addition only made the drama of SKYFALL more engaging and believable.

Another addition that I appreciated was the overlying theme of the secret service's relevance in the changing times. Such themes were mentioned off-hand and never fully explored in the Brosnan movies (especially GOLDENEYE) so now that it gets full focus, it helps the movie become more relevant in our time period. The problem with reviving old franchises is the task of making the aged characters work in a time period different from the one they were originally envisioned in; in the case of Bond, he was born in the golden age of espionage of the Cold War but now, in an age that relies more on a computer for intelligence information, those like him have close to no purpose at all. SKYFALL successfully overcomes the problem in a masterful way with its impressive dialogue between the old guard of espionage and the modern age believers. The dialogue between the characters is powerful enough to make even a James Bond fan (like myself) question the franchise's relevance now that the Cold War and the need for spies is long over; what makes the script great is not only in how it will get you involved in the story and its characters but it will definitely make you think and reflect a lot many other things.

My only complaint with SKYFALL was the CGI. The green-screen effects of some scenes were pretty obvious and while it doesn't dent the movie at all, it was a bit distracting and annoying to look at. Hopefully, in the next bond movies, the crew ditches or at least improves the CGI to make things look more realistic. I personally hope they go back to practical effects but that may just be me.

SKYFALL is the best thing that happened to James Bond in the new millennium. By far, this is the most emotional and exciting James Bond in recent memory and none of the drama in the storyline felt forced as everything worked well in the film's context as it did in CASINO ROYALE. Those who are worried that SKYFALL is only a James Bond movie in name will have no reason to fear. SKYFALL is an old-school Bond movie with all the improvements and additions the 2000's could provide and it works well, molding SKYFALL into a masterpiece in the long history of the James Bond franchise. It just goes to show that, indeed, (quoting Kincade in the movie) "Sometimes the old ways are the best."

I loved this movie. Daniel Craig is my fav Bond, even over Sean. Why? Because his portrayal of Bond is more real, better acted with action and great camera work/photography.

Anyway, this Bond movie was the best so far because it took us into the lives of these characters more than ever before, IMO. There is action enough for the action hounds (like me) and good scenery, not an overindulgence of gratuitous sex scenes but enough to keep the storyline going and Bond's reputation in tact.

I saw a different Bond in this movie - to me, I saw the humanness of this super agent. I liked the new characters and the actors who portrayed them. Loved Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem and OF COURSE, Judi Dench. Gosh, she's good. What a great ride this movie was because it had all the elements of an entertaining, action-filled, emotion-filled movie that delved more into the characters that I've come to love. Then it added some new faces that I cannot wait to see again!

Daniel Craig's bright blue eyes (great body) and brooding demeanor are perfect for a man who has seen so much destruction as James Bond. That's why he's the best Bond yet. Big shoes to fill when he retires! But let's not think about that yet...

I say without reservation...see this movie. Our 10:00 a.m. packed-house movie crowd clapped at the end.

What a crushing bore of a movie.

There's nothing even remotely original or progressive about this outing for Bond, and for me it actually plumbed new depths of disappointment that even Quantum of Solace hadn't reached.

It's the same-old, same-old, with the obligatory car-chase opening which, unlike the superb Casino Royale, attempts nothing innovative, such as parquet or scaffold-scaling.

The plot is a by-the-numbers yawn-a-thon along the lines of a rogue former agent, which sounds very familiar if you've seen Goldeneye.

There are even obvious mistakes, which, due to boredom in the cinema, I picked up on. They both involve characters (M, then Bond) failing to pick up objects that they miraculously have in hand seconds later despite leaving them where they lay. This is unforgivable for movies with huge budgets.

I despair for Bond, for although Casino Royale injected some much needed excitement and depth to the series (good plot, interesting characters, emotional resonance), the two movies since have trundled on as if it had never happened.

In fact, so much of the movie is spent referencing the old ones, that there is a desire to dig out the originals, which surely can't have aged that badly, could they? If you don't expect anything new or interesting, you might not be disappointed.

I went with an open mind. I went with the idea that if it was at least as good as Casino Royale I would be happy. It wasn't and I'm not.

I gauge the latest Bond film by Casino Royale or The Bourne Identity. If it is not as good as either of those...its not good.

The film only started getting good when we are treated to the DB5. The film, in my humble opinion is overly long, without a decent script, humour (up until the DB5) and a great "baddy" wasted.

Why can they not get it right. They did for Royale but this movie was only marginally better than Quantumn?

I had a novel end for the movie which when I mentioned to friends thought was better than the final draft.

Sorry, I have all the Bond films upto Royale. I now give up and will not be attending the cinema for the next. Let down...again.

This is one of the better Bond movies as I see it. The directing is excellent, as is the cinematography and music. Javier Bardem is great as a baddie, though he could have used a bit more background. He is over the top, but it suits the genre. In comparison, we get more background for Bond and M.

The plot is good and has a good flow to it, though the movie feels ever so slightly bloated in the beginning and the end. The action is well paced and free of annoying shaky-cam work. The dialogue is witty (more so than usual), though too much of the good stuff is given away in the trailer. It definitely feels less of a Jason Bourne movie than the last two.

Location-wise, Skyfall spends more time in Britain than any other in the series as far as I can recall. I like this change and it's nice to see more of MI6.

In all it's well worth watching and a great Bond movie.

Don't get overexcited. Yes I know Daniel Craig has done a couple of other movies. But first of all, the waiting time between two Bond movies was a very long one this time around (around 5 years) and the waiting time for the real Bond was even longer. You could also write a summary line that goes: Will the real Bond please stand up? Apart from current or a bit older catch phrases from music or TV (wrestling), let's get back to what is essential. Just like the movie does. I understand that some people did not like what the movie did. But to celebrate the 50th birthday of Bond there could not have been a better movie (ok there always can be a better movie, but it's a pretty good one right here). I'm not going to reveal any plot points or other significant things that will be more than a treat for Bond lovers. There are so many gems in this one, but without forgetting to make it about a really good story.

Daniel Craig must have finally arrived ... at least for most of the fans. Hopefully you can finally enjoy a Bond movie too, even if you didn't until now.

Completely unwatchable - that's how I'd describe this.

Many may have been conned how to think by the mass advertising, but to even call this mess a "Bond" film is an insult to the series... which has had a few stinkers and more than its fair share of cheesy moments.

Skyfall starts out at a pace to rival Crank and while those with brains may have been confused as to what the hell was happening, before I knew it, our dour-looking hero was sitting back watching hit men kill innocents with a sniper rifle before choosing to dispatch them.

But it gets worse: the wafer-thin few lines of dialogue that hinted at something resembling a plot then saw Bond exchange words with some model-cum-triad's moll, kill her bodyguards, and then sneak up on her NAKED whilst she showered, not to hear cries of rape or even an exclamation that he's still alive, but for her to part her legs before - one would presume - his irresistible sullen charm wowed her like pheromones brainwashing a bitch in heat! I had to turn it off.

Sure, Roger Moore and Sean Connery were ridiculous (and Moore was plain sleazy), but at least we saw them seduce the women. This new dude just turns up while they're in their birthday suits and, knowing that if he can kill three bad-arse villains she'd stand no chance, the women submit to his will.

I'm a man and I found this sexist.

So, without a real storyline, stupid action scenes that feel as if they're there "for great justice" and with a very depressive-looking Bond of questionable morals and judgement leading the charge, I can honestly type here now that this is THE WORST BOND EVER.

And yes, that includes the steaming pile of dog turd that was Quantum of Solace.

How is this film so successful? Is Bond a magic word that means you can film an ants nest for two hours, call it Bond, and presto, people will rate it high? Skyfall has absolutely nothing going for it, yet it has made millions. Maybe the sequel should have an android as the star (it would show a lot more emotion than the current Bond)? Before Daniel Craig tried to become Bond, I loved Bond movies. I loved the mix of amazing stunts, the wry humour, the cinematography and even the acting. Having John Cleese turn up as Q was a touch of brilliance. The last fifteen minutes of the last non-Craig as Bond movie contains more action and excitement than is in the entire Skyfall movie. Skyfall has earned the studio awards and lots of money, so unfortunately it can only mean that Daniel Craig will almost certainly be back as Bond. I tried to watch his first Bond attempt, but fell asleep after the first ten minutes. I tried to watch it again, but it just isn't Bond. I avoided his second attempt, but going by what the critics were saying, I watched "Skyfall", only watching it to the end because my daughter wanted too. This plodding, badly written, under budget tripe isn't even a shadow of a Bond film.

The Bond movie series started off quite original. It was really a combination of Hitchcock's "North by NorthWest," the T.V. series, "Danger Man" and numerous Mike Hammer type detective movies. However, Ursula Andress in a bikini, Sean Connery in a tuxedo, and some great sets by production designer Ken Adams gave it a sheen that no other film had before it. Every spy film in the 1960's tried to copy it and failed. This was a mixed brew that nobody had ever tasted before.

How sad to see the series now shamelessly copying other movies. The lost list of all our agents which triggers the plot comes from "Mission Impossible," The Exotic locations, including China are also from that movie series. The smiling, invincible psychotic killer villain is the "Joker" from "Batman"/"Dark Knight" Stealing again from the same source, the capture and imprisonment of the villain in the middle of film turns out to be a planned maneuver by the villain. The second major plot of betrayed agent going after his organization is from the Bourne (Robert Ludlum) movies. It is clear that the spy series that everybody else ripped off has run out of fresh ideas and is now shamelessly ripping off from other successful big budget movies.

One can imagine an honest trailer for this movie: "See the latest James Bond adventure. This is James Bond, older, uglier, stupider, and more vicious then you have ever seen him before. This film explores the one relationship you've always wanted to know about - the love/hate relationship between James Bond and "M." Does he love her? Is she a mother to him? Does she hate him? Is he like a wayward son to her? What is the truth about their relationship? See "Skyfall" and find out.

Anyways, this is as good a place as any to stop the series. It is clear that it has outlived its time and does not fit into the postmodern world.

Bond films are action entertainers and as action entertainers go, you must allow some leverage in terms of suspension of disbelief. But this movie took it too far

As I went to watch this movie, it already had an 8.3 on IMDb with over 15,000 votes. The critics reviews are also highly positive (some calling it one of the greatest Bond movies). I had higher hopes also given Javier Bardem was the main antagonist. Like I said, I don't mind pure entertainment for an action movie, I quite enjoy the Fast and Furious series as pure action entertainers.

My problem with this movie was it seemed like MI6 was being played for dumb throughout. There was one illogical scene and it was followed by another mind boggling where either MI6 would take a stupid call or the opponents would simply think them to be a bunch of useless amateurs and actually succeed with their plan. Now, the basic plot is completely fine and intriguing, it is the scenarios that were a complete let down. Sure, Bardem's character was intelligent, but it does not mean MI6 has to play dumb and let him get the best of the agency. Also, one generic point against most movies portraying cyber crime, you just show someone being a genius and don't even need to explain how one achieved his/her goals. But usually other such movies get canned by critics and viewers alike, strange everyone is looking the other way for this movie. Excessive romanticism with combination of Craig as Bond + Mendes is quite apparent, added no doubt by stellar performance by Bardem

For a series that projects adventures of one of the greatest spies in the world working for an enviable intelligence agency, the movie should have been slightly more cerebral, have some deduction or logic to arrive at certain conclusions rather than simply a series of action sequences wherein it never seemed like the bad guys were able to get one up against the best, but go one up because there were giant loopholes just waiting to be exploited.

Quite a disappointing movie with the only highlight being the title track and a few locales

For their fiftieth anniversary outing the producers and writers of Skyfall have elected, without a hint of irony, to plagiarise from their progeny and the other films these have influenced. The plot line is lifted from the first Mission: Impossible, the tone and character arc from Bond devotee Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, and the framing device from the Bourne series. The set pieces are largely borrowed from the aforementioned films and a number of previous Bonds. They even take one of Bourne's stars in a barely recognisable Albert Finney, a role that should have had Bourne's Brian Cox written all over it. There are a couple good lines but most of them seem to have been produced using the random Bond line generator and are delivered exactly when anticipated. In short what we get is a lazily conceived film delivered by a committee of Hollywood pretenders. Unfortunately what we don't get is a Bond film, just another post Bourne Hollywood-style actioner, save for a few bones thrown to the fans in the third act (Bond's DB5 and the revealing of a key 'new' character). Other than M, female characters share about ten minutes of screen time and all Bond has to do is show up to get laid in stark contrast to Craig's previous two outings (in QoS he never gets laid at all). Which is astonishing given that here Craig has all the charisma of a sack of potatoes. These 'Bond girls' only serve as vehicles for exposition, one doesn't even get a line of dialogue, and one wears just the right amount of lipstick to make you wonder if she's really just a guy in drag. The introduction of Bardem's villain is the highlight of the movie but any promise this scene brings is then completely squandered. There is some particularly poor CGI in the rendering of Bardem's make up and two Komodo Dragons. As the end credits rolled I was left feeling this whole sorry exercise's sole purpose was to introduce three rather dull new actors / characters to the franchise. As a life long Bond aficionado I am deeply saddened and now resigned to the fact, save for another reboot, we'll never see another decent Bond film again.

A prime example of where hype outweighs substance, "Skyfall" is the epitome of the studio pay dirt, exploiting the brand for the sake of some funny money, sans the desire to actually conceive, construct and execute a strong, cohesive narrative.

Daniel Craig is starting to relax, and that's a good thing insofar as Bond is concerned; not that I don't appreciate the contrast in his Bond incarnation, just that his chiselled features (physical and emotional) rarely enable much character to emerge. Javier Bardem - a stereotype if there ever was, not the worst Bond villain ever conceived, but I struggled to take him seriously (he seems to be cornering the market on villains with really bad hair-do's).

Adele's theme song while now ubiquitous on the radio, is but a pale imitation of the great themes developed for the Bond franchise since its inception. And finally, when you inflate an expectation to the degree to which "Skyfall" was relentlessly plugged pre-release, you've got to deliver. Aside from the production values, I'm not seeing where the money was spent on developing the narrative or plot (without the need for contrivances), so "Skyfall", for me, was a disappointment only amplified by its great expectation.

Both by the film's magnificence and the multitude of negative reviews for this Movie! And I'm not just saying this because I thought this was a masterful film, which it was, but because the reasoning behind these arguments is just ridiculous. From misconstruing what's actually happening in the movie to not being able to accept a change in Bond. First off, Bond wasn't made to stay the same forever, change is a real thing people, ACCEPT IT. Secondly, this is a story that's different than previous films. Skyfall is much deeper as it hits Bond's childhood and exposes his dark past. Sorry if this is too hard to comprehend so far.

The plot holes that exist are minor and are really only noticeable if one is really trying to bash a film without real reason. The key to a successful film is if it depicts a moving story and enthralls its viewers, and if one does nothing but to criticize a movie without an attempt at appreciation at any level is, again, appalling.

Away from the blind opposition, Skyfall is made great through its exceptionally well-acted cast on all sides, especially Dench's and Bardem's performances (I mean what do you expect). The cinematography is done exceptionally, because if Roger Deakins has anything to do with anything, it's gonna look beautiful, shown here at the Casino in Shanghail and especially in the building surrounded by neon lights. Thomas Newman is another veteran who does the score the justice that such an iconic theme deserves. The production design, especially between the Shanghai and Scotland scenes, adds to the momentous effects the film is able to create. The plot is more than intriguing, as it continues to develop and captivate the attention of its viewers more. Mendes has been an impressive director since '99 with American Beauty and Skyfall showcases his mastery is still applicable now.

Do not let the negative reviews on here push you away, Skyfall is no waste of time and will create an experience that you surely will not forget soon.